Off Again! The Political Schism. Robots!

We are leaving for Orlando to celebrate the combined birthdays of Dagny and Blake.  Their birth dates are 12 days apart but they are being celebrated at the same time. Dagny is getting a doll house and Blake a large play table on which he can do all kind of things but most particularly roll his cars, trucks etc.
===
Update on Obama's Iran Deal.(See 1 below.)
===
Bernie's golf tax. (See 2 below.)
===
Trump benefits from those who keep pressing forward but will Romney's demand he post his tax returns bring him down? Is Romney a stalking horse for Republican insiders?  Has Romney become the equivalent of Harry Reid who lied about Romney's failure to file income tax returns.? (See 3 below.)

There is a lot of press and media talk about the impending Republican choice of who will become their 2016 Nominee and several things become evident to me.

Democrats love to win, have built broad constituent groups and when they finally nominate their candidate they coalesce because, as I said, winning is everything to them and they tend not to engage in food fights and ripping into each other during the nomination process. Bernie would not even press Hillary on her many alleged computer misdeeds.  His reluctance demonstrated a desire to avoid a fight but it also may also have cost him the nomination.

On the other hand, Republicans "want to win" but seem too unbridled to accomplish this goal. Their passion and weapons tend to be directed at each other so when they arrive at their final decision their candidate(s) has/have been mortally wounded by their desire to eat each other's lunch.

In the current nomination chase, Trump remains the man to beat but his success has come about and highlighted the schism that exists between those who claim to be anti-establishment and those who are the insiders.  By the time the nomination is over, the two factions reveal their wounds and scars are so  deep they cannot bring themselves to support "whomever."

I understand when people are ideologically driven by beliefs which run deep and their ability and/or willingness to compromise is more difficult. Since the focus is more on ideology and not winning, at all cost, they are weaker than their opponents who are more " whorish" and political chameleons" and who elevate winning over ideology. At the present time, Hillarious is  running as Obama in a pant suit and Bernie as a native of Denmark.

The Democrat Party has become socialist and so far to the left they are unrecognizable whereas, Republicans remain as if they were two parties. One committed to a philosophy which they are reluctant to execute out of timidity and lack of faith in their beliefs and the other willing to burn the house down in support of social issues that are seen as extreme because they believe our Republic has drifted so far from our Constitutional roots we are a nation adrift.

Where does this leave the growing number of disaffected and angry voters? For the moment, the Democrats appear willing to nominate someone whom the FBI might propose should be indicted and the Republicans with a nominee whose conservative roots are shallow but who has run a lightning rod campaign which appeals to this anger, thereby, making him an odd front runner.

How this all ends is anyone's guess and regardless of the ultimate nominees and who becomes president the legacy of Obama's desire to radically alter our nation will remain as an indelible print and dictate his successor's ability to govern. 

God help us!

This from a friend and fellow memo reader and someone who early on was aware that The Repblican branding needed re-branding. (See 3a below.)

===

So what's new? (See 4 below.)
===
Finally, something to think about.

In the coming years many workers, many employed will be replaced by robots. Yes, these first robots will be made by many of the humans they will replace but stop and think about this.

Robots do not:

a) go on vacation or need sick leave.
b) ask for wage increases or even minimum wages
c) belong to unions.
d) do not ask for a 401K etc,
e) go on strike.
f) engage in discrimination or sexual advances etc.
g)can work 24/7

And, in time, replicate themselves  thus, eliminating those who initially built them and, more than likely,  will be able to build more robots.

Any thoughts?
===
It is time for a little "suthren humor!" (See 5 below.)

followed by a quiz!

Which of the following names are you familiar with?

1. Monica Lewinski
2. Bill Clinton
3. Hilary Clinton
4. Adolph Hitler
5. Jorge Bergoglio
6. Winnie Mandela
7. Vladimir Putin
8. Linda Lovelace
9. Saddam Hussein
10. Tiger Woods

You had trouble with #5 didn't you?

You know all the criminals, murderers, thieves, sluts and cheaters,

but you don't know the Pope??

Lovely, just lovely!  Well done....

===
Dick
========================================================================
1) The worm turns on Iran

By RichardBaehr

U.S. President Barack Obama has proudly declared that the Iran nuclear deal was the signature achievement of his second term in office, and his key foreign policy accomplishment. What Obamacare (the Affordable Care Act) was for his first term, the Iran nuclear deal was for his second. And much like Obamacare, time has not healed the wounds of the debate over the Iran deal or made the "accomplishment" any more popular.

It should be no surprise that Americans think the country is headed in the wrong direction by an overwhelming margin (over 70% believe this) or that the Iran deal has become less popular over time. We are in the midst of a presidential election campaign. Republicans routinely skewer the president on both domestic issues and foreign policy -- particularly regarding the chaotic nature of the situations in Libya, Syria and Iraq, and the emergence of the Islamic State group, which has led to the greatest human disaster in the Middle East in decades and Europe's greatest refugee crisis in 70 years. 

Every presidential debate involves several if not all the Republican contenders denouncing the Iran deal as one of the worst ever negotiated, and one that -- given its status as an executive agreement rather than a treaty -- is subject to immediate termination upon a new president taking office. The Democrats -- meaning Vermont Senator Bernie Sanders and former Secretary of State Hillary Clinton -- almost never discuss foreign policy, since the energy in the Democratic race has been supplied by Sanders and his supporters, and their agenda is almost exclusively domestic (other than cutting defense spending).Both Sanders and Clinton supported the Iran deal, as did almost all Democrats in the House of Representatives and the Senate, choosing loyalty to their president over any realistic appraisal of the merits of the agreement (giveaway) negotiated by Secretary of State John Kerry and State Department official Wendy Sherman. 

The most recent public opinion polling on the Iran deal by the Gallup organization shows 57% opposed and 30% in support. This is by far the widest margin favoring the opposition to the deal since the talks began and since the deal was struck. Barely half of Democrats (51%) support the deal, and only 9% of Republicans do. Independents oppose the deal by almost the identical percentage as the entire national survey, 53% to 30%. Only 14% of Americans have a favorable opinion of Iran. 

Again, this should be no surprise -- the agreement is routinely condemned in the debates in one party for the nomination -- the one which has attracted far more voters and media interest so far. Democratic presidential candidates and the Obama administration itself have been making almost no effort to defend it. 

The president and his administration have also been on defense almost since the moment the deal was struck. The supposed "new Iran" which was ready to join the community of nations and become a more moderate, responsible regional power, has been anything but. The president appeared to believe that a stronger, more confident Iran, could achieve a rough balance of power with the Sunni Arab states, and this would enable the United States to further disengage from the area. The president seems to believe that the world is better off and more likely to resolve its disputes when the United States is removed from the picture. Somehow this balance of power arrangement in the region would also be stable and peaceful. It is difficult to choose the right word to characterize such a belief in everything just working out in this part of the world -- but it is somewhere between naivete and lunacy. 

The seizure of an American ship by the Iranians, and the humiliating picture of our captive sailors with their hands over their heads, was probably the single worst pubic relations disaster for the administration. But anyone following the recent news on Iran would also be aware of their ballistic missile tests and their 

agreement to purchase $8 billion of military equipment from Russia, including specific missiles and weapons prohibited by prior Security Council resolutions. Whether the United States will take action in the Security Council (refusing to OK the arms deal) is not at all clear, since the administration has effectively given Iran a pass on every other violation of existing agreements since the nuclear talks became serious. Iran has stepped up its military engagement in Syria, with its own forces, Hezbollah troops and Iraqi soldiers, now buttressed by Russian air strikes. This appears to have changed the momentum on the battlefield in favor of the Assad regime, which has been expanding its area of control, and slaughtering the opposition forces, our erstwhile allies. The Iranians are also stepping up their activities in Yemen.

As Mortimer Zuckerman summarized in a recent article, Iran is living with the terms of the nuclear agreement where it benefits them -- over $100 billion in funds released, and economic sanctions removed, and flaunting it where it chooses to.

One argument the administration made in support of the nuclear deal was that the agreement would provide an opening for strengthening the "moderates" in Iran at the expense of the hardliners. Unfortunately, this was a total misreading of where the power resides within Iran, deal or no deal. The Iranians have never formally adopted the deal, and nothing has changed in terms of how the political processes work within the country. The ruling mullahs, as is their prerogative in this and every prior election, have invalidated the candidacy of roughly 99% of the so-called moderates who had sought to run for office. As The New York Times, usually a reliable mouthpiece for promoting the Obama administration, noted in a recent editorial.

"Last week, nine reformist political parties complained that the council had approved only 30 of the 3,000 moderates who registered, and urged top leaders to reverse the disqualifications."

One other bit of evidence that Iran has not only not changed but, if anything, doubled down on some of its most problematic behavior is the constant refrain since the agreement was struck that the State of Israel must be eliminated. This should come as no surprise, given that Iran has become the world center of anti-Semitic Holocaust denial. One new development is Iranian activity in Judea and Samaria, and greater coordination with Hamas in Gaza and ISIS forces in the Sinai Peninsula. 

The obvious conclusion on what the Iran deal has meant so far is that it has provided a big war chest for Iran to become a more belligerent player in the region, and expanded its horizons for opposing what heretofore might have been regarded as American interests. The Obama administration appears incapable of criticizing Iran or taking any action against it. Most important is that the deal between the two countries be preserved -- it is, after all, Obama's signature foreign policy achievement. Iran has clearly figured out that it can push on many fronts without drawing any American response. 

This pattern has also been seen in the administration's actions to preserve the fiction that Obamacare was a smoothly functioning system since its adoption in 2010 and significant implementation began in the fall of 2013. The administration unilaterally changed the rules of the legislation if they were proving politically problematic to some domestic constituency. 

On Iran, the Obama team now chooses to ignore Iran's provocation and continues to mouth the bromides about mothballing Iran's nuclear program for 10 to 15 years. The administration chose not to seek to negotiate a broader agreement with Iran that might have constrained Iranian behavior in all the other spheres in which the nation is a problem actor. Donald Trump, the current front runner for the Republican presidential nomination, always touts his book, "The Art of the Deal."

===============================================================================
2) A Golfer walks into the new Government National Golf Course pro shop and asks the golf pro if they sell ball markers.

The golf pro says that they do, and they are $1.00.

 The golfer gives the the golf pro a dollar.

 The golf pro opens the register, puts the dollar in, and hands the player a dime to use as a marker.

 This economic model is part of Bernie Sanders 90% tax plan to restore the US economy. Please make sure all golfers are aware.

=====================================================================

3) Trump and the Also-Rans

The front-runner piles up victories as his opponents give him a pass.

Donald Trump’s blowout victory in Nevada’s Republican caucuses on Tuesday night may have been expected, but at 46% of the vote it was no less impressive for that. If his opponents keep shooting each other instead of the front-runner, Mr. Trump will have the GOP nomination wrapped up on March 15.

Yet there’s no evidence that any of the also-rans are changing their strategy. Ted Cruz continues to cite his Iowa victory as proof he’s the only candidate who can beat Mr. Trump, though that was four contests ago and he has finished third behind Marco Rubio in the last two. The Texas Senator is also clinging to his failed strategy of saying Mr. Trump isn’t a “conservative,” as if anyone has any doubt or Mr. Trump’s voters care. Mr. Cruz’s strategy has served mainly to marginalize himself as a factional candidate of the far right.

Next Tuesday’s deep South primaries may be the Texan’s last stand, even if he does win his home state. If he can’t defeat Mr. Trump in other states that day, he has no chance to prevail as the primaries move to the Midwest and less evangelical territory. If he only wins in Texas, he should follow Jeb Bush’s honorable example and drop out.

Mr. Rubio finished a distant second again with 24%, and he too is bidding to be the sole non-Trump survivor. “A majority of Republican voters in the country do not want Donald Trump to be the nominee,” the Florida Senator said Wednesday, lamenting that the non-Trump vote is divided. “Until there’s some consolidation here, you’re not going to have a clear alternative to Donald Trump.”

Well, yes, but dime-store political analysis won’t cause voters to flock to Mr. Rubio. Neither will merely offering himself as the Republican with the best chance to win in November. Mr. Rubio won 51% of the Nevada voters who prize electability, according to the entrance poll, but they were only 24% of the electorate. GOP voters favor Mr. Trump because they see him as a tough guy who would shake up Washington.

Starting with Thursday night’s debate, Mr. Rubio has to give voters some larger reason to vote for him instead of Mr. Trump. Maybe it’s by taking Mr. Trump on about his non-plan to replace ObamaCare, or maybe it’s a focus on growing the economy and incomes, or his romance with Vladimir Putin, but Mr. Rubio needs something to break Mr. Trump’s momentum and sow doubts about the businessman’s candidacy. If he can’t do that, Mr. Trump will roll over Mr. Cruz next week and finish off Mr. Rubio in Florida two weeks later.

Then there’s John Kasich, who won only 3.6% in Nevada and is barely contesting the states next week. His campaign argues that if Mr. Trump knocks off Messrs. Cruz and Rubio, Mr. Kasich will be the last alternative standing if he wins Ohio on March 15—and then Republicans will rally to him. But without doing better on March 1 than he did in Nevada, the Ohio Governor will merely be a spoiler on March 15.

One mystery of this primary season is that the non-Trumps have behaved as if they can win the nomination by attacking everyone except the front-runner. They seem to believe he will spontaneously combust. This has left Mr. Trump “winning, winning, winning,” as he put it in Nevada, while the rest compete to finish second—and then applaud themselves for losing.

3a) "The political season continues to confound just about everybody.

I think a lot of it has to do with the decline of our culture.  When Caitlin Jenner is seen as a hero to the Millennials, the political situation is a bit easier to understand, although it certainly doesn't make it more palatable to yours truly.  Today, it's all about celebrity status and Trump seems to understand this.

More importantly, Trump's popularity at the polls actually fits right into our Branding work with the GOP, but it has been overlooked by all of the media pundits as far as we know.  And, it is something that could help him get elected if he gets the GOP nomination.

As we pointed out to the RNC, the Republican Umbrella brand is so tarnished that it casts a negative light on all GOP candidates, no matter how good they actually might be.  (Romney would have won in a landslide had he been a Democrat.)  But Trump has disowned the GOP Umbrella!  He trashes and degrades the GOP at every turn.  Some people, in fact, wonder if he really is a Republican.  While this strategy may turn off entrenched GOP voters, Trump is appealing to a huge swath of voters who also have a negative image of the GOP Brand.  So Trump is not impacted by the negative halo effect of the GOP Umbrella Brand.

Perhaps Trump got wind of our work and recognizes its brilliance???   

So rather than try and fix the GOP Umbrella Brand (not an easy task) he has decided to toss the umbrella into the garbage can.  In the Presidential Election, this could be a uge factor!

My advice is to hold your nose and vote for the Republican candidate whoever it is.  We can not afford 4 or 8 years of Hillary and a continuation of Obama policies.

Make sense? J=="

==================================================================================

4)

Iran Vote Shows Deal’s False Hopes

By JONATHAN S. TOBIN 

You would think the Obama administration would be paying more attention to Friday’s Iranian election. President Obama sold the nuclear deal to the American people on the basis that it gave the Islamist regime a chance to “get right with the world.” The assumption was that if the West ceased trying to isolate Iran, assured its government that no one would threaten its longevity, gave them $100 billion in frozen funds, and opened the floodgates to Western businesses, that will mean even more money in the long run that Iran would start to moderate. Guess again.

As even the sympathetic reports published in the New York Times about this week’s election show, nothing in Iran has changed in the wake of the deal. The so-called moderates led by President Hassan Rouhani have no clout in the actual running of the government. And most of their supporters were disqualified from even running. Which is to say that supporters of Iran’s Supreme Leader Grand Ayatollah Ali Khamenei will be the winners in the election.

It is worth pointing out again that one shouldn’t confuse the fact that Iran holds elections with democracy. It’s true there are candidates, rallies, and people do vote. And there is some choice as to who will sit in its parliament. But regime committees vet all of the candidates to make sure that no one who would be in favor of change or genuine reform gets on the ballot. That means even those supporters of the theocracy, but who just want to loosen things up a bit, have also been purged. In other words, it’s an election in which there are no real choices.

That is not to say that Iran doesn’t have politics. It does. But the competitors are all supporters of the theocracy; they back Iran’s terror allies, its push for regional hegemony, and Israel’s destruction. So while Iran will put on what its apologists will call a demonstration of diversity and democracy, it’s all for show.

This is significant because as a result of the Iran nuclear deal, this regime is about to get a lot richer and stronger. As I noted earlier this month, the cash windfall that is about to start flowing into the country won’t help private business or most ordinary Iranians. It will, instead, go to government-run companies as well as the vast network that is controlled by the Iranian Revolutionary Guard Corps, which also runs Tehran’s far flung terror apparatus.

There are plenty of Iranians who would like some kind of reform of a society that is tightly controlled by a repressive government. They will grasp at any straws offered by the regime such as the chance to elect an alleged moderate to the presidency like Rouhani even though they know the office has little power. They’ll also hope that some moderates will somehow make it into the parliament. But they also know that the Islamists maintain a monopoly on political power. Moreover, they are also painfully aware that the ayatollahs and their violent henchmen will meet any real challenges to it — as opposed to the fake ones on display in the election — with the same brutality they meted out to protesters in the streets of Iran in 2009.

But that still doesn’t stop the Obama administration or its media cheerleaders from pretending that Iran is morphing into a reasonable partner for the West. To the contrary, everything that has happened since the nuclear deal was put in place confirms the suspicions of the critics that warned that Khamenei — the one man with the real power — has no intention of moderating its foreign policy any more than of loosening the Islamist grip on Iranian society. Iran continues to violate UN resolution forbidding their missile tests while not backing off on its efforts to ensure the survival of its ally Bashar Assad in Syria or supporting Hezbollah and Hamas terrorists threatening Israel. The funds that will enrich Iran help these terrorists while ordinary Iranian will beg for the crumbs that regime throws in their direction. Iran’s nuclear program will also remain in place and be an even more potent threat when the deal expires in a decade.

That’s why the Obama administration will downplay this week’s Iran elections since a deep dive into what is actually happening in that country would remind the American people of the bad deal that the president struck with a vicious, tyrannical and untrustworthy government. The Iranian election is a signal that the West has become a funder of one of a despotic and dangerous regime that is unchanged and still unchallenged. Rouhani and the faux democracy on display this week fools no one, except perhaps an administration that is still waiting for moderates to take power in a country where no moderate can survive.

========================================================
5) A judge was interviewing a South Carolina woman regarding her pendingdivorce and asks, "What are the grounds for your divorce?"

"About four acres and a nice little home in the middle of the property
with a stream running by."

"No," he said, "I mean what is the foundation of this case?"

"It is made of concrete, brick, and mortar," she responded.

"I mean," he continued, "what are your relations like?"

"I have an aunt and uncle and 12 cousins living here in town, as well
as my husband's parents."

The judge took a deep breath and asked, "Do you have a real grudge?"

"No, we have a two-car carport and have never really needed one cuz we
don't have a car."

"Please," he tried again, "is there any infidelity in your marriage?"

"Yes, both my son and daughter have stereo sets. We don't necessarily
like the music - all that hip hop and rap tap - but we can't seem to
do anything about it."

"Ma'am, does your husband ever beat you up?"

"Yes, he gets up every morning before I do and makes the coffee."

The judge asked, "Is your husband a nagger?"

"Oh, heck no, he's as white as you and me!"

Finally, in frustration, the judge asked, "Lady, why in heck do you
want a divorce?"

"Oh, I don't want a divorce," she replied. "I've never wanted a
divorce, my husband does. The fool says he can't communicate with me."

======================================================================================