School pictures are not always good but when you have a beautiful subject then that can be something else. Dagny now close to 4.
===
We have my "redo" knee surgeon and his wife as house guests this weekend and Sunday, Allen West arrives and is also staying with us. Allen is the SIRC President's Day Dinner Speaker Monday the 15th. Therefore, this will be my last memo for the next few days.
Meanwhile, before I discuss how worry possibly escalates into fear let's have a little humor:
GREAT TRUTHS LITTLE CHILDREN HAVE LEARNED:
1) No matter how hard you try, you can't baptize cats.
2) When your Mom is mad at your Dad, don't let her brush your hair.
3) If your sister hits you, don't hit her back. They always catch the second person.
4) You can't trust dogs to watch your food.
5) Don't sneeze when someone is cutting your hair.
6) You can't hide a piece of broccoli in a glass of milk. 7) The best place to be when you're sad is Grandma's lap.
1) No matter how hard you try, you can't baptize cats.
2) When your Mom is mad at your Dad, don't let her brush your hair.
3) If your sister hits you, don't hit her back. They always catch the second person.
4) You can't trust dogs to watch your food.
5) Don't sneeze when someone is cutting your hair.
6) You can't hide a piece of broccoli in a glass of milk. 7) The best place to be when you're sad is Grandma's lap.
AND
GREAT TRUTHS ADULTS HAVE LEARNED:
1) Raising teenagers is like nailing jelly to a tree.
2) Wrinkles don't hurt.
3) Families are like fudge...mostly sweet, with a few nuts
4) Today's mighty oak is just yesterday's nut that held its ground.
5) Laughing is good exercise. It's like jogging on the inside.
6) Old age is when you choose your cereal for the fiber, not the toy.
1) Raising teenagers is like nailing jelly to a tree.
2) Wrinkles don't hurt.
3) Families are like fudge...mostly sweet, with a few nuts
4) Today's mighty oak is just yesterday's nut that held its ground.
5) Laughing is good exercise. It's like jogging on the inside.
6) Old age is when you choose your cereal for the fiber, not the toy.
---
The Fed has worried inflation was not high enough and I have been concerned more about deflation. Lamentably, I am winning.
People are justifiably worried. When people worry they sit on their hands and will not spend. Investors are selling and raising cash and this results in downward market pressure and consequently, lower stock prices. Lower stock prices results in more worry.The Fed lowered rates to save the economy and that forced investors to seek more income in riskier equities. Now, with the market declining, the fact that the Fed caused the market to rise is now biting everyone in the behind - more worry.
Obama conned Repubs into worrying they would be blamed for shutting down the economy if they caved so they approved a budget that increased spending resulting in a rise in our accumulated deficit. More worry.
Gold on the rise suggests worry is beginning to morph into fear. Marc Cuban buying gold.
Another worry factor: The Saudis are doing their best to maintain their share of the oil market, want to slow down America's energy development and make it financially difficult for Iran. Consequently, the Saudis are over producing in the face of slowing energy demand as well as the enormous amount of energy above ground and in storage etc. You would think low gas prices would be uplifting but the circumstances causing the decline in energy prices is destabilizing and thus, more worry.
Finally, Janet Yellin, testified she is surprised by the dollar's strength which is slowing American exports and causing energy deficient nations to pay more for their oil even though the price is going lower. More worry and less money to spend.
Lots of justified worry which can feed on itself and become a self-fulfilling fact thus, making matters worse.
Should fear gain momentum, we could spin into another recession and Obama is the last person you want coping with dire economic circumstances because he would use it as another opportunity to cause more harm by destabilizing our Republic. More to worry about.
You decide.
===
Putin is starring in a new musical entitled: "Whatever Putin Wants, Putin gets." (See 1 below.)
===
Kasich picked up a wealthy supporter yesterday. Ken Langone, was a co-founder of Home Depot and former President of The NYSE. Ken supported Christie but, when he folded his campaign, Ken shifted his support to Kasich. Kasich should have sufficient monetary backing to keep going if the voters stick with him.
I indicated previously I voted for Kasich in the Ga. Primary when I went to vote early Wednesday.
===
Yesterday, Bernie decided it was time to court black Americans so he sat down and breakfasted with the biggest race hustler in the nation - Al Sharpton (see three photos above.)
As noted, Bernie wants to tax the rich, who pay more than their share of taxes, and Al makes his living shaking them down and owes millions in back taxes.
Today, Hillarious was endorsed by the Congressional Black Caucus. This is a group of Black Congresspersons who consistently claim they effectively represent their constituents. Yet, their constituents continue to sink in an economic and social sense. The black family has been destroyed by progressive policies yet, the Black Caucus continues to ignore facts because they know if they acknowledged the truth they might be voted out of office and lose power.
Single mothers raising children dependent on government welfare is a prescription for disaster. Statistics suggest these black kids are more than likely doomed to fail and not because they wanted to be born, not because they are inherently bad. They are simply the victims of cynical political hypocrisy. Why is their future mostly bleak? Because they do not get the parenting they need, they do not get the schooling and education they need to compete for decent jobs. Consequently, they are subject to a disproportionately high rate of incarceration because they engage in too much anti-social activities. One could argue members of the Black Caucus have been useless in breaking the chains that enslave their constituents to the Democrat Party because by ducking the tragic reality they stay in power.
Hillarious may tell black voters what they hunger to hear and progressives throw them government crumbs purchased with food stamps and dispense other goodies but, the plight of the black community continues to deteriorate economically and socially. The hypocrisy practiced upon them is immoral. The liberal press and media ignore the truth as well because it does not serve their purposes,which is to garner votes at any cost. After all winning is everything. How tragic and cynical.
And what has Obama's policies done for his own? NADA. In fact, collectively, black America is worse off since he became president. His solutions are more of the same, ie. free goodies and pious talk while blaming Republicans and police.
This is what America's first black president has achieved and it disgusts and angers this conservative but, you already know that if you read my memos.
===
My friend Bret Stephens believes the next American president will continue to downgrade America's relationship with Israel.
I believe Bret has a valid point because there comes a time when the burden of a friendship becomes too much to bear when your friend's opposition remains obdurate and ruins every opportunity to resolve thorny and costly issues. (See 2 and 2a below.)
But then maybe we all should leave (See 2b below.)
===
Obama is one of the most clever and devious liars to sit behind the desk in The Oval Office , even exceeding "Ole" Bill.
How so?
If you recall, when he first took office he went to Egypt and spoke about American arrogance and apologized to the Arab World for America's misdeeds etc.
Then he proceeded, for the next seven years, to do personally everything he accused America of, ie. he has been arrogant, he has circumvented the dictates of our constitution, he has thumbed his nose at the opposition party and stuck his finger in the eye of those with whom he has a philosophical disagreement. In a word, Obama has been a divisive traitor to America's ideals. He has purposely used wedge issues to divide us, he has spent money not to strengthen us but to weaken us and to garner votes from various constituency groups. He has projected weakness, curried favor with our enemies, allowed our borders to leak and diminished our nation's influence while bowing to our adversaries. This is the real Obama legacy and Hillarious vows to continue in Obama's footsteps and Bernie promises to turn America into a socialist kingdom.
===
Reposting Krauthammer on The Clinton's. (See 3 below.)
===
Logic is dead.
Excellence is punished.
Mediocrity is rewarded.
And dependency is to be revered.
This is present day America. (See 4 below.)===
Me
========================================================================1) How President Putin is getting what he wants in Syria
President Putin set himself achievable goals in Syria and committed enough force to meet them.
Viewed from the West, Russia's President, Vladimir Putin, is in the diplomatic dog-house.
His annexation of Crimea and military involvement in eastern Ukraine broke the settled pattern of post-Cold War relations in Europe.
The Russian military's increasingly aggressive patrolling and exercises on the margins of Nato have raised genuine concerns – even in a country such as Sweden – that a conflict with Russia can no longer be regarded as impossible.
Reluctant Nato governments are slowly increasing defence spending, and the US is taking steps to reinforce its forward presence in Europe.
Russia, of course, puts the boot on the other foot and blames Nato's expansion for its increased military readiness.
But this is a government widely believed to have sent its agents to poison an opponent in London, leaving a radioactive trail across the city.
Curiously then, the prevailing Western response to Russia's engagement alongside President Bashar al-Assad's government in Syria has been to argue Russia and the West potentially share some common ground.
Russia – at least up to a week or so ago – was seen as a co-sponsor of the diplomatic effort to bring peace to Syria and a vital element in any solution.
Whether this view – in hindsight largely wishful thinking – will survive the onslaught by the Syrian Army and its allies on Aleppo remains to be seen.
It is Russian air power more than anything that has changed the fortunes of the Syrian government.
And this offensive – coming just as a new round of talks was getting under way – effectively poisoned the discussions before they really began.
Realpolitik object lesson
So might this be a moment when the scales will fall from Western eyes and Russia's true intentions become clear?
We are not talking here about morality or what is right – there is precious little of that to go round on any side.
Syria is an appallingly complex problem, and no single party can be blamed for the continuation of the war.
What we are talking about is Realpolitik. And here, Moscow has given Western capitals an object lesson in what can be achieved.
To the Western view there is no military solution in Syria, Moscow has effectively begged to differ.
It chose a side – a side credible militarily in the sense it had too much to lose if defeated.
That side had reasonably effective allies such as the Hezbollah fighters and various militias recruited by Iran and guided by Iranian commanders.
And Russia itself deployed sufficient resources to make a difference.
It took a little time, but the results on the ground are now clear.
Backed by Russian air power, Syrian pro-Assad forces have been making gains (AFP)
Russia set for itself an achievable goal – to bolster the Syrian government and ensure it retained control over a significant part of the country.
In so doing, it has unleashed its air force largely against militia fighters backed by Turkey, the Gulf Arabs and the West, and it is winning.
Contrast the Western approach, beset by problems and contradictions at every turn.
The West backs so-called moderate militias – but who exactly are these moderates?
Many are being forced into alliances with groups close to al-Qaeda.
Yes, Washington and al-Qaeda are objectively on the same side – contradiction number one.
Of course, the West is largely in it to defeat so-called Islamic State (IS).
But is this the primary goal of its regional allies such as Saudi Arabia and Turkey?
No, their chief goal is to secure their strategic stakes in Syria – ideally by destroying President Assad.
IS is their enemy, but in many ways a secondary one – contradiction number two.
Two enclaves
Then, of course, there is the Kurdish question.
The West's most effective allies on the ground are Kurdish fighters.
But the Turks see them as a threat and any nascent Kurdish entity as a nightmare to be avoided at all costs – contradiction number three.
By contrast Mr Putin's life is simpler.
It is often said he has the advantage over his Western peers of not having to worry about public opinion.
Thus, the downing of a Russian airliner created little of the waves of protest at government policy that might have happened if a Western plane had been destroyed.
But think this through logically.
Is anything about Western policy a reflection of public opinion?
The publics are as confused as their political masters.
How do you react to drowning refugees, terrible suffering, and apparently intractable conflicts in places at one and the same time far away but also so terribly close?
Image copyright Reuters Image caption The flow of refugees into Europe will continue
Mr Putin is not just achieving his military goals in Syria.
His success threatens to reduce the country to two enclaves – a coastal rump dominated by the Syrian government and the rest broadly in the hands of IS.
What will the West's choices be then?
Mr Putin has shown Russia remains a force to be reckoned with in the Middle East, just at a time when the Americans seem best characterised by vacillation.
He has shown Russia has a limited but nonetheless impressive expeditionary military capability, and he has given a runout to much of Russia's latest hardware.
So, for now, Mr Putin has a victory of sorts.
I suppose the question is how long will it last?
Russia's own underpinnings are shaky. And with low oil prices set to persist, can the president really afford to behave like a kind of throwback to the Soviet era?
But, make no mistake, the Syrian peace process is stillborn.
The fighting will continue, with so-called moderate forces squeezed between government forces and IS.
The Kurdish question will continue to rear its head.
And the refugee flow towards western Europe will continue unabated.
In unifying ends and means, Mr Putin knows what he wants. And, for now, he seems to be getting it.
========================================================================
2) Bret Stephens: The next US president may not be pro-Israel
2) Bret Stephens: The next US president may not be pro-Israel
The winner of the US presidential election in November may not be supportive of Israel at all, Pulitzer Prize-winning journalist Bret Stephens warned on Wednesday.
“I think, if I were an Israeli decision-maker, I would say, ‘We might hope, but we should not assume, that the next president of the United States is going to be pro-Israel, and even pretend to be pro-Israel,’” Stephens told senior editors at The Jerusalem Post.
A former editor-in-chief of the Post who is currently deputy editorial page editor of The Wall Street Journal, Stephens is visiting Israel from the US to participate in meetings of the Israel Democracy Institute’s International Advisory Council.
Not known for being a strong supporter of President Barack Obama, Stephens said his successor may be even worse for Israel.
“Obama will always say, ‘I’m a great friend of Israel.’ I think he’s a great friend of Israel when it’s easy, when it’s about providing planes to wipe out the forest fire or giving de minimis funding for Iron Dome – de minimis on the scale of the US budget,” he said. “I think he’s not a great friend when you have an overwhelming majority of Israelis opposed to an Iran deal, and he pushes it through in a way that I thought was deceptive. But the next president might not even bother with that, especially with the rising popularity of Bernie Sanders, and all the more so because no one can accuse him of being an anti-Semite.”
Stephens said it is too early to predict the results of the US presidential primaries.
“It’s really anybody’s race, as you saw yesterday from the New Hampshire ballot,” he said. “This is such a wild year politically in the United States that it’s very hard to forecast where we’re going to be in 12 months’ time.”
Describing himself as “a left-handed, right-wing Mexican Jew – a really small minority,” the erudite Stephens bashed both the Democratic and Republican front-runners.
“Bernie Sanders worries me. Hillary Clinton worries me. Donald Trump worries me, and frankly Ted Cruz kind of worries me too,” he said. “Bernie Sanders is, as befitting a very left-wing Jew, not exactly sympatico with the cause of Israel,” he said. “I don’t think that Trump’s going to get the nomination, but we’ll see. It worries me that Mrs. Clinton is so close to Sidney Blumenthal, whose son [Max] is a raving, psycho anti-Semite.”
Asked who he thinks is the most favorable candidate for Israel, Stephens said, enigmatically, “I always refuse to answer that question because I am barred by Dow Jones, my employer, from offering political endorsements, so I only offer political disendorsements.”
Calling Trump “an ignoramus,” Stephens noted, sarcastically: “He went in front of the Republican Jewish Coalition and said, ‘You’re all fantastic negotiators.’ Exactly! ‘We’re terrible basketball players, but we’re great negotiators.’ When you’re too stupid to realize that you’re engaging in anti-Semitic tripe, then you’re really far gone.”
Of all the candidates, Republican Sen. Marco Rubio has “the most nuanced and sophisticated foreign policy,” he said.
Stephens argued that Iran poses much more of a threat than Islamic State, although he warned that the coming year would see more Paris-like terrorist attacks.
“ISIS is on balance the lesser evil in that ISIS doesn’t have an air force, ISIS doesn’t have industrial-scale nuclear capabilities,” he said. “I think ISIS has to be destroyed, but ISIS is like Donald Trump – and boy am I going to get into trouble for this – in that to the extent that it’s perceived as a winner, it draws adherents and makes converts and gains strength.”
He criticized the Obama administration for not being fair with Israel, especially over the Iran deal.
“I’ve called Obama an anti-Israel president, but Obama at least goes through the motions of saying, ‘I’m the most pro-Israel president you’ve ever had, except it’s in ways that very few Israelis recognize as pro-Israel.’ It’s like, ‘I’m going to break your nose as your friend because you’ve got a bad nose, and if I break it, you’ll get a nose job,’” he said. “That’s the kind of wisdom that the administration likes to peddle: that sometimes friends have to tell each other ‘the truth.’ A statement that apparently doesn’t go in two directions because when Bibi [Netanyahu] went to Congress to talk about the Iran deal, the Obama administration blew a gasket. So what’s sauce for the goose, apparently, is not sauce for the gander.”
He said the administration should have been “more empathetic” with Israel, especially when it comes to the Palestinian conflict.
“We’re living in a world where our friends don’t trust us, and our enemies don’t fear us, and that explains the kind of disorder that has become so ubiquitous,” he said. “For at least 20 years, there was a theory that with the right Israeli government and the right Palestinian leader you could reach a peace deal. Now I think there’s a consensus that the most that Israel can possibly concede in any negotiation is less than the minimum Palestinians are prepared to accept. It’s unbridgeable.”
He said he backed the establishment of a Palestinian state “in theory, but not in practice.”
“The one thing that might mollify criticism of Israel, which is the creation of a Palestinian state, is for all kinds of reasons, I think, not likely to happen any time soon. All this tells you I don’t think we’re going to see a resumption of the kind of bilateral relationship that we’ve had. I don’t think that what we’re experiencing is the normal wave-like pattern of ups and downs in the relationship, that it might become something much darker.”
The IDI’s International Advisory Council is scheduled to enjoy four days of activity and discussion, including a special dinner with Netanyahu and meetings with President Reuven Rivlin, Knesset Speaker Yuli Edelstein and senior representatives of the major sectors of Israeli society. In addition to Stephens, its distinguished guests include former US secretary of state George Shultz and former US ambassador to Israel Martin Indyk.
2a)Jordanian military commanders caution their Israeli counterparts that "Palestinians violate in the evening that which they sign in the morning," and that "a Palestinian state would be a death sentence to the pro-U.S. Hashemite regime, transforming Jordan into a platform of terror, haunting the shaky pro-U.S. regimes in the Persian Gulf."
| | |
Yoram Ettinger
| America, be wary of a Palestinian state!
U.S. President Barack Obama and Secretary of State John Kerry intend to advance recognition of an independent Palestinian state by January 20, 2017 -- the end of Obama's second term -- regardless of how adversely it will affect national and homeland security. In light of this, the president turned down a request by Senate Minority Leader Harry Reid to commit to vetoing any U.N. Security Council resolution calling for an independent Palestinian state. According to Obama and the U.S. foreign policy establishment, a Palestinian state would enhance stability, moderation, peace and democracy.
But how credible and realistic is this expectation?
In 1993, then-Senator Kerry and the U.S. foreign policy establishment were convinced that PLO Chairman Yasser Arafat -- a role model for international terrorism -- would respond to Israel's unprecedented Oslo Accords concessions by transforming himself from "outlaw to statesman." However, their assessment was discredited by an unprecedented wave of Arafat and Mahmoud Abbas-engineered hate-education, incitement and (the resulting) terrorism -- which persist even today.
In 2011, Obama, then-Secretary of State Hillary Clinton and then-Senator Kerry believed that the eruption of turbulence on the Arab street was an Arab Spring, a youth revolution, a Facebook revolution that would transition the Arab world into democracy "Through the moral force of nonviolence, the people of the [Middle East] have achieved more change in six months than terrorists have accomplished in decades."
However, their assessment has been disproved by the reality of an anti-U.S., anti-human rights, terror-driven and Islamic supremacy-inspired Arab tsunami, led by ruthless minority regimes and cheered on by an obedient and politically insignificant Muslim majority.
On May 19, 2011, Obama stated that "when [Libyan President Moammar] Gadhafi leaves ... the transition to a democratic Libya can proceed."
On Sept. 21, 2011, Obama celebrated the toppling/lynching of Gadhafi by anti-U.S. Islamic terror gangs: "From Tripoli to Benghazi Libya is free. ... The idea that change could only come through violence has been buried with [Gadhafi]."
However, Obama's assessment proved to be wrong on Sept. 11, 2012 when four Americans were murdered in a massive terrorist assault on the U.S. Consulate in Benghazi, and when post-Gadhafi Libya transformed into the largest platform of well-armed anti-U.S. Islamic terror organizations, feeding Islamic terrorism in Africa, the Middle East and Europe.
In June 2012, after pressuring then-Egyptian President Hosni Mubarak to resign, Obama and the U.S. foreign policy establishment congratulated the Muslim Brotherhood on its victory in Egypt's presidential election. They heralded it as a milestone in Egypt's transition toward democracy However, this assessment proved false in July 2013 when the Muslim Brotherhood -- the largest transnational Islamic terror organization that haunts pro-U.S. Arab regimes -- was ousted, by a rare coalition of liberal Egyptians and the military, opposing a Muslim Brotherhood Islamic dictatorship and its support of terrorism in the Sinai Peninsula and on the mainland.
What would be the realistic impact of a Palestinian state on U.S. national security and homeland security?
The nature of the proposed Palestinian state and its impact on vital U.S. interests can be gleaned through the anti-U.S. hate-education and terror track record of the Palestinian Authority and the PLO, the quintessential terror organization which (according to the Oslo Accords) oversees the Palestinian Authority -- both headed by Abbas. Whether led by the PLO or Hamas, a Palestinian state would risk an Arab tsunami on the Palestinian street.
For example, the Palestinian Authority maintained the PLO's close ties with anti-U.S. regimes such as Iran, North Korea, Cuba, Venezuela, Russia, China and Sudan, as well as with Osama bin Laden and Saddam Hussein. A Palestinian state would provide Iran, Russia, China and possibly North Korea with naval and land access to the eastern flank of the Mediterranean, at the expense of the U.S. power projection.
A Palestinian state would mean one more anti-U.S. vote at the United Nations.
Moreover, Palestinian leaders collaborated with Nazi Germany and the Communist Bloc and were trained by the KGB and other ruthless communist secret services. Abbas received his doctorate (in Holocaust denial) from Patrice Lumumba University in Moscow, was trained by the KGB, and managed the finances and logistics of the 1972 terrorist attack at the Munich Olympics, where 11 Israeli athletes were massacred.
The PLO, led by Arafat and Abbas, was a role model and incubator for hijacking, suicide bombing, car bombing and inter-Arab treachery, exporting terrorism to India, China, Russia, Afghanistan, Europe, Africa and the United States. PLO autonomy in Jordan (1968-1970) and in Lebanon (1970-1982) provided manpower, training and inspiration to a multitude of terror organizations in the Middle East, the Far East, Western Europe and Central and Latin America. Abbas' PLO murdered the U.S. Ambassador to Sudan in 1973 and helped Islamic Jihad operatives murder 300 U.S. Marines in Beirut in 1983. Palestinian terrorists fought U.S. forces in Afghanistan and Iraq.
The dramatic 1993 and 2005 Israeli concessions (retreating from 40% of Judea and Samaria; offering to retreat to the pre-1967 lines; uprooting all Jews from Gaza) facilitated the establishment of the Palestinian Authority by PLO terrorists from Iraq, Yemen, Sudan, Syria, Lebanon, Jordan and Tunisia. As expected, in light of the reality in the Middle East, this has intensified Palestinian terrorism as well as international terrorism.
Since 1993, the Palestinian Authority has been characterized by hate-education, the glorification of homicide bombers, the systematic violation of commitments, corruption, the oppression of the Palestinian people and a forced wave of Christian emigration, which transformed Bethlehem, Beit Jallah and Ramallah from Christian-majority to Christian-minority cities.
Jordanian military commanders caution their Israeli counterparts that "Palestinians violate in the evening that which they sign in the morning," and that "a Palestinian state would be a death sentence to the pro-U.S. Hashemite regime, transforming Jordan into a platform of terror, haunting the shaky pro-U.S. regimes in the Persian Gulf."
In 1950, 1966 and 1970, Abbas (who speaks softly) and Arafat fled Egypt and Syria due to subversion and terrorism and were expelled from Jordan following an attempted coup against King Hussein. In 1975, they tried to topple Lebanon's central government, triggering a multiyear civil war and Syrian occupation. In 1990 they participated in Saddam's rape of Kuwait. Leopards don't change their spots, only their tactics.
After regaining control of the mountain ridges of Judea and Samaria in 1967, Israel dramatically upgraded its posture of deterrence and transformed from a consumer to a producer of means to ensure national security. Against the backdrop of the rising conventional and unconventional Islamic threats to the U.S., Israel increasingly resembles the largest and most critical U.S. aircraft carrier, one which does not require a single U.S. boot on board, deployed in a most vital area for U.S. military and economic interests. The establishment of a Palestinian state on the mountain ridges of Judea and Samaria would dramatically erode Israel's posture of deterrence, which currently extends the strategic hand of the United States, sparing the need to deploy additional U.S. troops to the Middle East. This enhances the national security of pro-U.S. Arab regimes -- especially Jordan -- which consider Israel to be an effective life insurance policy.
Could the proposed Palestinian state advance U.S. interests and values, enhancing stability, moderation, peace, and democracy?
The proposed Palestinian state cannot exist simultaneously with U.S. values and national security interests.
2b) |
Apparently we should get on a boat and leave America ASAP
By John Podhoretz
The message from Thursday night’s Democratic debate is that everybody in America should get on a leaky rowboat and find somewhere, anywhere, else in the world to live — because life in the United States is a nightmare from which millionaires and billionaires and the Koch brothers and the Republicans will not allow us to awake.
The two candidates for the Democratic nomination spent most of two hours arguing over who was the better diagnostician of the moral diseases, ideological calamities, spiritual infirmities, racial injustices and downright evils that are being visited upon the suffering 320 million who have found themselves through no fault of their own trapped between two oceans in a dystopian oligarchic hell they call America.
Hillary Clinton and Bernie Sanders were essentially auditioning last night for the role of Snake Plissken. Do you remember Snake Plissken? He was the eyepatch-wearing hero of “Escape from New York,” the 1981 science-fiction picture in which Manhattan has become a prison and Snake Plissken is the only guy who can find the way out.
|
Only the America from which they want to liberate us is Barack Obama’s America. Oh, they don’t say as much. Hillary blames the Koch brothers. Bernie blames millionaires and billionaires and the campaign finance system. They both blame the Republicans.
But let’s face it: It’s Obama’s world. They and we are all just living in it.
And what a world. “There is,” Sanders said, “massive despair all over this country.” Wages low. Millions in prison.
|
The highest rate of childhood poverty in the world. The old have inadequate health care, don’t have enough money for food, are chopping up their pills to make them last longer.
Hillary said immigrants are living in fear. There’s systemic racism. Police brutality.
And don’t forget the horrors of being white, with “an increase in alcoholism, addiction, earlier deaths. People with a high school education or less are not even living as long as their parents lived . . . Coal miners and their families who helped turn on the lights and power our factories for generations are now wondering, has our country forgotten us?”
She concluded the debate by saying Sanders’s focus on punishing Wall Street was limited.
That’s because “if we were to stop that tomorrow, we would still have the indifference, the negligence that we saw in Flint. We would still have racism holding people back. We would still have sexism preventing women from getting equal pay. We would still have LGBT people who get married on Saturday and get fired on Monday. And we would still have governors like Scott Walker and others trying to rip out the heart of the middle class by making it impossible to organize and stand up for better wages and working conditions.”
|
Every now and then, one or the other would grudgingly say America had “potential,” but only to point out that it was potential to which it was not living up. Sanders even went into a long peroration about how horrible it was Hillary once said something nice about Henry Kissinger, who is 92 years old and last served as a US government official 40 years ago.
I thought “The Walking Dead” was a frightening vision of America. That zombie show is a walk in the park compared to Thursday night’s debate.
The loathsome and reprehensible caricature of America foisted upon its citizenry by Sanders and Clinton — a country with undeniably serious problems and challenges that is still the last great hope of Earth and a place Americans should and mostly do still feel grateful to have as their unique birthright — is another sign that we have a great many lessons we’re going to have to learn all over again.
In the 1980s, Democrats found themselves forced to battle the impression that they were anti-American. So desperate were they to dispel this idea that at their convention in 1984, Democrats waved a thousand flags and chanted “USA” and sang the national anthem until their voices went hoarse.
And that was after four years of a Republican president.
In 2016, after seven years of a Democratic presidency, look where they are now.
=========================================================
|
3)Charles Krauthammer on Hillary Clinton
The Clintons should both be in prison. She is not fit to run for POTUS.
Recently, Charles Krauthammer alluded that he had no doubt some of the 30k emails Hillary deleted from her private e-mail server very likely had references to the Clinton Foundation, which would be illegal and a conflict of interest. .
The Clinton Foundation is "organized crime" at its finest.
Here is a good, concise summary of how the Clinton Foundation works as a tax free international money laundering scheme.
It may eventually prove to be the largest political criminal enterprise in U.S. history. This is a textbook case on how you hide foreign money sent to you and repackage it to be used for your own purposes. All tax free.
Here's how it works:
1. You create a separate foreign "charity." In this case, the Clinton's set it up in Canada.
2. Foreign oligarchs and governments, then donate to this Canadian charity. In this case, over 1,000 did -- contributing mega millions. I'm sure they did this out of the goodness of their hearts, and expected nothing in return. (Imagine Putin's buddies waking up one morning and just deciding to send untold millions to a Canadian charity).
3. The Canadian charity then bundles these separate donations and makes a massive donation to the Clinton Foundation.
4. The Clinton Foundation and the cooperating Canadian charity claim Canadian law prohibits the identification of individual donors.
5. The Clinton Foundation then "spends" some of this money for legitimate good works programs.
Unfortunately, experts believe this is on the order of 10%. Much of the balance goes to enrich the Clinton's, pay salaries to untold numbers of hangers on, and fund lavish travel, etc.
Unfortunately, experts believe this is on the order of 10%. Much of the balance goes to enrich the Clinton's, pay salaries to untold numbers of hangers on, and fund lavish travel, etc.
Again, virtually all tax free, which means you and I are subsidizing it.
6. The Clinton Foundation, with access to the world's best accountants, somehow fails to report much of this on their tax filings. They discover these "clerical errors" and begin the process of re-filing 5 years of tax returns.
7. Net result -- foreign money goes into the Clinton's pockets tax free and untraceable back to the original donor. This is the textbook definition of money laundering. . Oh, by the way, the Canadian "charity" includes as a principal one Frank Giustra. Google him. He is the guy who was central to the formation of Uranium One, the Canadian company that somehow acquired massive U.S. uranium interests and then sold them to an organization controlled by Russia. This transaction required U.S. State Department approval, and guess who was Secretary of State when the approval was granted. .
As an aside, imagine how former Virginia Governor Bob McDonnell feels. That poor schlep is in jail because he and his wife took $165,000 in gifts and loans for doing minor favors for a guy promoting a vitamin company. Not legal but not exactly putting U.S. security at risk. .
Sarcasm aside, if you're still not persuaded this was a cleverly structured way to get unidentified foreign money to the Clinton's, ask yourself this: . Why did these foreign interests funnel money through a Canadian charity? Why not donate directly to the Clinton Foundation?
Better yet, why not donate money directly to the people, organizations and countries in need? . This is the essence of money laundering and influence peddling.
Now you know why Hillary's destruction of 30,000 e-mails was a risk she was willing to take.
Bill and Hillary are devious, unprincipled, dishonest and criminal, and they are Slick!
Warning: They could be back in the White House in January 2017.
Don't let it happen.
======================================================================
4)Sanders and Trump: Magic sells
By Charles Krauthammer
4)Sanders and Trump: Magic sells
By Charles Krauthammer
The New Hampshire results have solidified the reigning cliche that the 2016 campaign is an anti-establishment revolt of both the left and the right. Largely overlooked, however, is the role played in setting the national mood by the seven-year legacy of the Obama presidency.
Yes, you hear constant denunciations of institutions, parties, leaders, donors, lobbyists, influence peddlers. But the starting point of the bipartisan critique is the social, economic and geopolitical wreckage all around us. Bernie Sanders is careful never to blame President Obama directly, but his description of the America Obama leaves behind is devastating — a wasteland of stagnant wages, rising inequality, a sinking middle class, young people crushed by debt, the American Dream dying.
Take away the Brooklyn accent and the Larry David mannerisms and you would have thought you were listening to a Republican candidate. After all, who’s been in charge for the last seven years?
Donald Trump is even more colorful in describing the current “mess” and more direct in attributing it to the country’s leadership — most pungently, its stupidity and incompetence. Both candidates are not just anti-establishment but anti-status quo. The revolt is as much about the Obama legacy as it is about institutions.
Look at New Hampshire. Hillary Clinton had made a strategic decision, as highlighted in the debates, to wrap herself in the mantle of the Obama presidency. She lost New Hampshire by three touchdowns.
Beyond railing against the wreckage, the other commonality between the two big New Hampshire winners is in the nature of the cure they offer. Let the others propose carefully budgeted five-point plans. Sanders and Trump offer magic.
Take Sanders’ New Hampshire victory speech. It promised the moon: college education, free; universal health care, free; world peace, also free because we won’t be “the policeman of the world” (mythical Sunni armies will presumably be doing that for us). Plus a guaranteed $15 minimum wage. All to be achieved by taxing the rich. Who can be against a “speculation” tax (whatever that means)?
So with Trump. Leave it to him. Jobs will flow back in a rush from China, from Japan, from Mexico, from everywhere. Universal health care, with Obamacare replaced by “something terrific.” Veterans finally taken care of. Drugs stopped cold at the border. Indeed, an end to drug addiction itself. Victory upon victory of every kind.
How? That question never comes up anymore. No one expects an answer. His will be done, on Earth if not yet in heaven. Yes, people love Trump’s contempt for the “establishment” — which as far as I can tell means anything not Trump — but what is truly thrilling is the promise of a near-biblical restoration. As painless as Sanders’.
In truth, Trump and Sanders are soaring not just by defying the establishment, but by defying logic and history. Sanders’ magic potion is socialism; Trump’s is Trump.
The young Democrats swooning for Sanders appear unfamiliar with socialism’s century-long career, a dismal tale of ruination from Russia to Cuba to Venezuela. Indeed, are they even aware that China’s greatest reduction in poverty in human history correlates precisely with the degree to which it has given up socialism?
Trump’s magic is toughness — toughness in a world of losers. The power and will of the caudillo will make everything right.
Apart from the fact that strongman rule contradicts the American constitutional tradition of limited and constrained government, caudillo populism simply doesn’t work. For example, it accounts in large part for the relative backwardness of Africa and Latin America. In 1900, Argentina had a per capita income fully 70 percent of ours. After a 20th century wallowing in Peronism and its imitators, Argentina is a basket case, its per capita incomenow 23 percent of ours.
There certainly is a crisis of confidence in our country’s institutions. But that’s hardly new. The current run of endemic distrust began with Vietnam and Watergate. Yet not in our lifetimes have the left and right populism of the Sanders and Trump variety enjoyed such massive support.
The added factor is the Obama effect, the depressed and anxious mood of a nation experiencing its worst economic recovery since World War II and watching its power and influence abroad decline amid a willed global retreat.
The result is a politics of high fantasy. Things can’t get any worse, we hear, so why not shake things to their foundation? Anyone who thinks things can’t get any worse knows nothing. And risks everything.
=======================================================
No comments:
Post a Comment