Failure creates vacuums. ISIS filled the one Obama created when he withdrew prematurely from Iraq after GW's "Surge" had brought a disaster to a more positive conclusion.
What took place in San Bernadino has finally exposed Obama's many failures, domestic and foreign. which we now appear more willing to recognize and accept. Consequently the vacuum Obama's failures have brought to our shores have made us more prone to react in a less than measured manner and thus the questionable appeal of Trump and Hillarious.
What I find dispiriting is that a woman being investigated for allegedly breaking various laws, a proven liar by her own words and a person who has engaged in self serving acts,while occupying an important national office could become president yet would never be allowed to apply or be considered for a major position with an American Corporation. (See 1 below.)
As for Mr. Trump, his appeal lies in the fact that he is out spoken and self-funding his campaign but he lacks the wisdom, self-restraint , knowledge of history and respect both for The Constitution and The Oval Office. (See 1a below.)
However, when it comes to Trump being effective in raising issues on the minds of many who are unwilling and/or afraid to speak out, because of PC'ism's success at controlling expressions, he is due an A plus.
Trump's appeal is because of his inflammatory rhetoric, and thus, he is perceived as being tougher on terrorism. Hillarious , try as she will, is too associated with Obama's weakness as well as her own when confronted by her decision making pertaining to terrorism.
Concerns about terrorism have replaced, for the moment, other critical issues such as our deficit spending, domestic crime beyond terrorism, education, unfunded government guarantees etc.
Americans have, once again, gotten ahead of their leadership and when leadership fails things can get out of control. Obama remains committed to his view and no amount of domestic terrorism seems to matter or has much effect. Furthermore, he has surrounded himself with incompetents who dare speak out and tell Obama his is naked. Third, Obama remains obstinate when it comes to taking advice particularly from the military. Thus,Obama embraces half-measures, leads from behind, and remains a reticent president blinded by his Muslim background and radical associations.
Where this all shakes out is too early for me to discern.
But two things I believe - POGO was right - "Woe Is Us" and markets tell a lot about a nation's mood. Ours is currently dour and apprehensive and could become gloomier.
===
Shortly the implementation of the misguided Iran Deal will add more grief to an already full menu. (See 2 below.)
===
We rejected Giuliani because he was seen as too tough among other reasons. Perhaps he ran at the wrong time. In many ways he is another Christie type. (See 3 below.)
===
On another note, it is one thing to stand behind your principles but when doing so gives overwhelming leverage to your opposition and could cause you to lose everything you are seeking, standing your ground is stupid. The more conservative members of the Republican House owe Speaker Ryan their support so he can accomplish what they seek in the long run. Thus, if that means some give and take, they need to grow up and act mature.
If Republicans cannot rise to the challenge and block Pelosi's efforts to gut the tax bill of necessary items then they do not deserve to be considered a major party capable of forging ahead for the sake of protecting the needs of our nation. We know the Demwits have outlived their usefulness as a dependable party. It is now time for Republicans to prove their worthiness.. (See 4 below.)
===
Below is a link to the video of the Louisville Urban League 2015 Annual Meeting. The newly elected President of the Louisville chapter, Sadiqa Reynolds is a friend of our daughter, Amy. Sadiqa has had an impressive career and I encourage you to have a look at this unique perspective from a gifted person who has overcome many daunting personal challenges.
https://m.youtube.com/watch?v=
====
Comment from dear friend and fellow memo reader: "By the way….just read the article you sent by Kim S. - horrifying to say the least……it seems difficult to even think that the leaders that we, as a county, have elected are such devious people who are only interested in one-upmanship and not what is good for the people. " C-------
My response: "We live in perilous times because we have allowed ethics to be trampled by the acts of renegades and Obama is at the top of my list. Also PC'ism has defined what we can and cannot say and that has strangled our ability to express what is on our minds. Thus my memos.
Dick
=============================================================================================
Comment from dear friend and fellow memo reader: "By the way….just read the article you sent by Kim S. - horrifying to say the least……it seems difficult to even think that the leaders that we, as a county, have elected are such devious people who are only interested in one-upmanship and not what is good for the people. " C-------
My response: "We live in perilous times because we have allowed ethics to be trampled by the acts of renegades and Obama is at the top of my list. Also PC'ism has defined what we can and cannot say and that has strangled our ability to express what is on our minds. Thus my memos.
These vacuums are going to either be rejected and filled by a return to electing the more qualified or they will be filled by the likes of Hillarious and Trump and if so then we are basically finished.
Sad. I have lived during the filet mignon of our nation's history and I have left my children and grandchildren to pickup my bill. Me
===
=============================================================================================
1)
By Post Editorial Board
Liar, liar, pantsuit on fire: Hillary Clinton still insists she didn’t tell the grieving families of the Benghazi victims that an anti-Islam video was to blame.
Yet family members say she said just that, three days after the attack, at the Sept. 14, 2012, ceremony at Andrews Air Force Base.
George Stephanopoulos asked her Sunday if she’d told the victims it was about the film. Clinton gave a flat “no.”
She added: “I said very clearly there had been a terrorist group, uh, that had taken responsibility on Facebook, um . . .”
At least four family members disagree.
Tyrone Woods’ father said he hugged Clinton and shook her hand. Then “she said we are going to have the filmmaker arrested who was responsible for the death of my son . . . She said ‘the filmmaker who was responsible for the death of your son.’ ”
Sean Smith’s mother said Hillary is “absolutely lying . . . She said it was because of the video.” Smith’s uncle backs her up.
Glen Doherty’s sister agreed: “When I think back now to that day and what she knew, it shows me a lot about her character that she would choose in that moment to basically perpetuate what she knew was untrue.”
“What she knew” refers to Clinton’s words to daughter Chelsea the night of the assault and the next day to Egypt’s prime minister, which made it plain the secretary of state knew full well that a terror group had long planned the attack.
The lie’s even in her words at the Sept. 14 ceremony: “We’ve seen rage and violence directed at American embassies over an awful Internet video that we had nothing to do with.”
Just why the administration united around this lie is another editorial. The disgrace here is Clinton’s refusal to admit her role — even pushing the fib to “comfort” the bereaved.
Stiff as the competition is, this has to count as her lowest-down, dirtiest lie of all.
1a)
Why take the Trump stunt seriously?
So how exactly does this work, Donald Trump’s plan to keep America safe from Islamic terrorism by barring entry to all Muslims? He explained it Tuesday on TV. The immigration official will ask the foreigner if he’s a Muslim.
“And if they said, ‘yes,’ they would not be allowed in the country?”
Trump: “That’s correct.”
Brilliant. And very economical. That is, if you think that bloodthirsty terrorists — “people that believe only in Jihad, and have no sense of reason or respect for human life,” as Trump describes them — will feel honor-bound to tell the truth to an infidel customs officer. They kill wantonly but, like George Washington, cannot tell a lie. On this logic hinges the great Maginot Line with which Trump will protect America from jihad.
I decline to join the chorus denouncing the Trump proposal as offensive and un-American. That’s too obvious. What I can’t get over is its sheer absurdity.
Here’s a suggestion (borrowed from my Fox News colleague Chris Stirewalt) to shore it up. At every immigration station at every airport in America , we will demand that every potential entrant — immigrant, refugee, student or tourist — eat a bacon sandwich. You refuse? Back home you go!
True, the Stirewalt Solution casts the net a bit wide, snaring innocent vegetarians and Orthodox Jews. But hey, as Trump said Tuesday , “We’re at war — get it through your head.” Can’t get squeamish about collateral damage.
Dozens of others have already pointed out how strategically idiotic is Trump’s exclusion principle. Absent a renewed Christian crusade against radical Islam — with those fabulous Hollywood-wardrobe tunics — the war on terror will be won only in alliance with moderate Muslims. Declaring them anathema is not the best beginning to coalition-building.
To take but the most obvious example: Our closest and most effective allies on the ground in the Middle East are the Kurds. Trump would turn them back at the Orlando airport. No Disney World for them. Or does he not know that they are Muslim?
It is embarrassing even to embark on such arguments. To treat “no Muslims allowed” as a serious idea is to give credit to what is little more than a clever stunt by a man who saw Ted Cruz beating himfor the first time in the Iowa Monmouth poll and five hours later decided it was time to seize the stage again.
This got the thinkers going again. National Review’s Andrew McCarthy, whom I (otherwise) hold in considerable esteem, spent 1,000 words trying to tart up the ban in constitutional and statutory livery, stressing — hilariously — that he is dealing with the Trump proposal “in its final form.” As if Trump’s barstool eruptions are painstakingly vetted, and as if anything Trump says about anything is ever final.
Take his Syria policy. In September, he said we should wash our hands and just let Russia fight the Islamic State. Having, I assume, been subsequently informed that Vladimir Putin’s principal interest — and target — is not the Islamic State but the anti-Assad rebels, Trump now promises to “bomb the s---” out of the Islamic State.
I’m sure there’s a Trump apologist out there working to explain the brilliant complementarity of these two contradictory strategies. Just as a few months ago there was a frenzy of learned scholarship about the constitutional history of the 14th Amendment following another Trump eruption — the abolition of birthright citizenship.
Whatever the final outcome, Trump’s campaign has already succeeded, indelibly affecting both this race and the Republican future. At a time of economic malaise at home and strategic collapse abroad, Trump has managed to steer the entire GOP campaign into absurdities, like mass deportation of 11 million illegal immigrants, and impossibilities, like the exclusion of Muslims from our shores.
“No Muslims allowed” is the perfect example. President Obama’s Oval Office address on Sunday night marked a new low in his presidency. The shopworn arguments, the detached tone, the willful denial that there might be anything wrong with his policy were deeply unsettling for left, right and center. Even the New York Times had to admit “Obama’s Plans to Stop ISIS Leave Many Democrats Wanting More,” which is Timesese for Democrats Stunned by Vacancy in the Oval Office. Here was an opportunity for the Republican field to launch an all-out takedown of the Obama (and Hillary Clinton) foreign policy.
Within less than a day, that opportunity was wiped out. Once again, it’s the Donald Show
================================================================================
2)
We are being deceived on Iran
Analysis: Five days before the deadline for implementing the deal with the West: Intelligence officials let on that Iran is not meeting its obligations to dismantle its nuclear program.
By Alex Fishman
|
Following the signing of the nuclear deal in July, the sanctions against Iran will be lifted within the next seven days, on December 15. But Iran is not meeting its obligations to dismantle its nuclear capability as per its agreement with six world powers.
This revelation was confirmed by Western intelligence officials who have been following Iran's dismantling of its nuclear program.
Nonetheless, in Israel there is no mistaken illusion: the sanctions on Iran will indeed be lifted next week, at the appointed time, and moreover while world powers try to blur the fact that this process will take place despite Tehran's failure to honor its commitments.
According to the agreement, the Iranians have until December 15 to dismantle two-thirds of its active centrifuges, so that they will not have more than 6,000 old-generation centrifuges in their possession. All the advanced centrifuges will be taken apart, the stockpiles of enriched uranium (up to the grade of 3.6 percent) will be reduced from 7,000kg to 300kg and the medium-grade enriched uranium will be destroyed.
The Iranians are also obligated to make engineering changes to their plutonium creation at its Arak reactor, so that it will not be able to create military-grade material. They must also allow the continuous presence of International Atomic Energy Agency (IAEA) inspectors at their nuclear facilities.
Deliberate deception
None of these clauses have been fulfilled. Yedioth Ahronoth has received information from Western intelligence officials showing with that the pace the Iranians are working at, they will only meet their obligations sometimes during the second half of 2016 – and perhaps even later.
However, this seems not to make any difference to the IAEA. Reuters news agency revealed the draft resolution of the IAEA board of governors, which sets out that "all the activities in the road-map for the clarification of past and present outstanding issues regarding Iran's nuclear program were implemented in accordance with the agreed schedule and further notes that this closes the Board's consideration of this item."
In contrast to the board of directors, however, IAEA inspectors – those who are actually supposed to be confirming whether Iran is meeting its obligations – revealed this week that Iran is in fact not keeping to its commitment to give a full report of the military components that its nuclear project had in the past. This report was another requirement of the nuclear agreement.
The inspectors said that there is reason to assume that the Iranians had been engaged in nuclear-military development until 2009 – contradicting a 2007 American intelligence report which stated that Iran had discontinued its nuclear weapons program in 2003.
The conclusion that is missing from this assessment is clear: American intelligence reports on the subject of Iran are deceptive and fixed, probably for political motives.
The Iranians for their part have signaled that they do not accept the ruling of the IAEA inspectors. They have requested that only the board of directors – which is comprised of representatives of the world powers at the international agency – will be the ones to assess whether Iran is adhering to the clause that requires it to reveal its nuclear weapons project.
The Iranians hope that the representatives of the powers, who are diplomats, will gloss over this finding from the inspectors on the ground. Going by the draft resolution revealed by Reuters, it seems that the Iranians will not be disappointed.
Another issue has arisen ahead of the IAEA's publication of its report on whether Iran is meeting its obligations. According to the world powers party to the agreement, Iran has breached another requirement it was supposed to meet in order for the sanctions to be lifted entirely. Part of the Vienna agreement involved the non-proliferation of unconventional weapons – including a ban on ballistic missile tests.
However, it was recently revealed in the West that Iran carried out such a test – involving a long-range ballistic missile – on its border with Pakistan, around a month ago. The US government expressed its concern at this breach of the agreement, but the State Department simply said that they needed to "check the nature of the test" with satellite imagery.
A gift to Rouhani
This is of course a pretense of innocence: it's not only that the US government and intelligence apparatus know exactly what this test was, they also know that two ballistic missiles were fired within a relatively short space of time.
An American official confirmed to The Associated Press that Iran carried out the second test with a ballistic missile – to which a nuclear warhead can be affixed – on November 21. The official further stated that Iran only reported the first tests, which it conducted on October 10. The two tests are a severe violation of the nuclear agreement.
"If we verify these reports and discover that there has been a violation, we will take the appropriate measures," said State Department Spokesperson John Kirby.
The Russian alibi
Behind the tough statements it is clear that the US, along with the rest of the world powers, fully understand the firing of these missiles – but is making a supreme effort to cover it up in order not to embarrass itself.
Every intelligence official in the West also knows which preliminary stage Iran is at with regard to dismantling its nuclear capabilities, as well as being aware of Iran's violations concerning its ballistic missiles and the distribution of weapons to terror organizations in the Middle East – i.e. Hamas, Hezbollah, Islamic Jihad and the Houthi rebels in Yemen.
The Russians are on the threshold of an enormous business deal with Iran, worth billions of dollars, that is supposed to extricate Moscow from the economic crisis it has fallen into as a result of the West's sanctions and the oil price crash. A senior Russian inspector at the IAEA stated this week that Iran "is meeting its obligations regarding uranium enrichment," probably in order to create a Russian alibi for the advancement of its deal with Iran.
The Obama government also has a clear interest in covering up the fact that Iran is still not sticking to its commitments, a state of affairs which would obligate the US to admit that it had misled Congress. Also in play here is the US's desire to strengthen the so-called "pragmatic government" of Rouhani against the more conservative elements in Iran, ahead of parliamentary elections that are due to take place in a couple of months. The lifting of sanctions would strengthen Rouhani's standing.
During the first stage of the lifting of sanctions – which starts on December 15 – $150 million in frozen funds will be released to the Iranian regime from European banks. Straight after that a series of commercial agreements will gradually be able to be signed between Iran and different countries around the world, and the rest of the funds released.
========================================================
3)
Call Islamic Terrorism by Its Name
Why ignoring the religious beliefs behind the threat is foolish—and dangerous.
In 1983 when I was the U.S. attorney in New York, I used the word “Mafia” in describing some people we arrested or indicted. The Italian American Civil Rights League—which was founded by Joe Colombo, one of the heads of New York’s notorious five families—and some other similar groups complained that I was defaming all Italians by using that term. In fact, I had violated a Justice Department rule prohibiting U.S. attorneys from employing the term Mafia. The little-known rule had been inserted by Attorney General John Mitchell in the early 1970s at the behest of Mario Biaggi, a congressman from New York.
I had a different view of using the term Mafia. It reflected the truth. The Mafia existed, and denying what people oppressed by those criminals knew to be true only gave the Mafia more power. This hesitancy to identify the enemy accurately and honestly—“Mafia” was how members described themselves and kept its identity Italian or Italian-American—created the impression that the government was incapable of combating them because it was unable even to describe the enemy correctly.
Similarly, you may hear about ISIS or ISIL or Daesh, but make no mistake: The terrorists refer to themselves as members of Islamic State. Just as it would have been foolish to fail to use the word Mafia or admit its Italian identity, it is foolish to refuse to call these Islamic terrorists by the name they give themselves or to refuse to acknowledge their overriding religious rationale.
Yes, it is essential to emphasize to the public the distinction between Islam and Islamic terrorists. That education has been in progress in the U.S. at least since 9/11. I recall that during my last press briefing on that horrific day, I urged New Yorkers not use the barbaric attacks to attach group blame—for doing so would mirror the sort of thinking that inspired the terrorists. President George W. Bushand New York Gov. George Pataki made similar appeals, and the American people overwhelmingly took that idea to heart, and still do. They knew that the attacks were the actions of people with a warped, evil interpretation of the Islamic religion.
Yet it is also essential to acknowledge that there are portions of the Islamic texts that are used by these terrorists to justify mass murder in the name and for the propagation of their faith. Unfortunately, this confusion between the religion and those who pervert its meaning is exacerbated by the Obama administration and others in prominent leadership positions who engage in euphemisms or misdirection regarding Islamic terrorism. They make it seem that they see no connection between the acts of terror and the terrorists’ interpretation of Islamic teaching and Shariah law.
For example: It was and is ludicrous for the administration to describe Nidal Hasan’s attack at the Fort Hood Army base in Texas in 2009 as “workplace violence,” particularly since as he was committing the murders he was yelling “Allahu akbar”—Allah is great. The administration was similarly reluctant to describe the San Bernardino attacks last week as terrorism, much less as Islamic terrorism, even as evidence mounted making clear the nature of the attack.
The failure to speak bluntly about Islamic terrorism opens the door to the vast generalizations that can steer the debate in a totally counterproductive direction. The idea of excluding all Muslims is unworkable and legally dubious. It will soon disappear. But it is clear that the Obama administration’s refusal to face up to the nature of Islamic terrorism is never going to change. That is more than foolish. It is also dangerous.
Investigating large multifaceted criminal organizations like the Mafia or making war against similarly complex terrorist organizations requires properly identifying the organizational rationale. Making it politically incorrect to use the proper designation also makes it much harder to see the connections that enable these groups to flourish.
The refusal to acknowledge the Islamic link to terror also can contribute to making mistakes. Nidal Hasan kept being promoted, all the way to major, by superiors who overlooked evidence that he was turning into an Islamic radical—they feared being accused of discrimination if they did otherwise. Last week, news reports emerged from San Bernardino that a neighbor of the terrorist couple had observed, in the days before the attack, suspicious behavior but didn’t report it for fear of being accused of bigotry.
We are paying a big price in safety and security by worshiping at the altar of political correctness. Large bureaucracies are often strongly influenced by the signals given by their leaders; the current refusal to identify the enemy accurately impedes the ability of law enforcement to properly categorize and investigate suspicious behavior. The sooner we discuss Islamic terrorism honestly, the faster we will detect these terrorists.
Here is the reality. There are radicalized groups of Muslims that pick and choose portions of the Quran and Hadiths religious texts, interpreting them as instructions to pursue jihad and impose their religion on the whole world. Infidels, they believe, have three alternatives: conversion to Islam, submission (the payment of tribute) or death. Killing of infidels is to these extremists a religious obligation that will gain them entry to a sensuous and rewarding life in paradise.
To deal with this, we must strengthen our surveillance capabilities by restoring the portions of the Patriot Act that Congress removed in June. We must establish a no-fly zone in Syria so that the refugees remain there and aren’t brought to the United States. Our ineffective vetting of Tashfeen Malik, one of the killers in San Bernardino, when she came to America is an example of why the process must be overhauled and made much more expansive. Finally, we must recognize and acknowledge that there is an Islamic terrorist war against us, and we must respond appropriately.
The overwhelming majority of Muslims don’t hold these beliefs. Like members of other religions with ancient roots, these Muslims ignore the barbaric portions of their books and history. Judaism long ago read out of the Old Testament the stoning of women for adultery. Christians long ago abandoned crusades, inquisitions and pogroms. We must encourage Muslim leaders to show the world that Islamic terrorists represent an antiquated and inhumane interpretation of Islam. These leaders need to loudly and dramatically speak for the hundreds of millions of Muslims who worship a peaceful, merciful and loving God. All Americans, in particular those in the media, can do their part by encouraging those Muslim leaders who come forward with a positive message about modern Islam.
Mr. Giuliani is the former mayor of New York.
=================================================================================
4)
Congress continues to negotiate a year-end omnibus budget deal, and details are changing as we write, but one lesson is already clear. Republicans will get fewer conservative policy victories in the end because they can’t marshal a majority of 218 Members of their party to pass a final bill.
4)
Empowering Nancy Pelosi
Once again House Republicans forget the power of 218 votes.
Congress continues to negotiate a year-end omnibus budget deal, and details are changing as we write, but one lesson is already clear. Republicans will get fewer conservative policy victories in the end because they can’t marshal a majority of 218 Members of their party to pass a final bill.
Only 78 Republicans voted for the broad budget deal that was former House Speaker John Boehner’s final act and set up the current negotiation. While new Speaker Paul Ryan has been forging better relations with the rank-in-file, his honeymoon isn’t so great that he can count on a majority of his 247 Members to have his back in negotiations.
That has policy consequences because it means Mr. Ryan needs Democratic votes to fund the government. This is empowering Nancy Pelosi, the Minority Leader who exercises far more control over her caucus. By all accounts Ms. Pelosi has been driving a very hard bargain. This includes ruling out nearly all of the policy “riders,” or explicit legal language, that would overrule President Obama’s worst executive orders or regulations. If Republicans want to shrink the welfare and regulatory state, they need to do so year by year, which means sticking together.
=======================================================================
No comments:
Post a Comment