===
I typed this Friday before I left for Orlando.
===
I listened to a little of the Thursday night debate then it turned me off. We have really sunk to a new low when it comes to having adults engage in a debate that resembles a playground argument we would expect among 3 year olds.
I know many Americans are angry and since we have no tea to throw into the river we have substituted politicians but if we step back and observe we are really throwing away our Republic.
And believe me the Democrats are no better.
Obama has decimated the coal industry, wasted billions on premature alternate fuel boondoggles and dis-employed tens of thousands of hard working Americans all because of his ideological war against the greatest threat America faces - fossil fuels. This from the head of a party that professes to be for the little person.
Hillary gets more money from speaking, while saying nothing worth hearing, than mining families formerly earned in their lifetime but she cares for all the little people. Yeah, she is going to fight for the little people and don't you think otherwise because she claims to have come from an Arkansas Hillbilly family just like all the little people.
As for Bernie, he too cares for the little people. He cares for them so much he wants to have the government take over everything they use to do for themselves so they can turn to "Uncle Sam," quit being independent and just live off the rich 1%. If the little people need anything just come to Uncle Bernie's store. He knows the needs of the working class because he never worked an honest day in his socialist life.
These are the two leaders of the new Democrat Party and if you will just allow them to help get us out of the mess they put us in all will be "right" - with what is "left" of our Republic.
And,
This from a fellow memo reader whom I have never met. (See 1a below.)
Finally,
Who cares who won the debate,. One thing is for sure. The nation and CNN lost. (See 1b and 1c below.)
===
Obama never told us he was an accomplished violinist! (See 2 below.)
===
If the nail fits wear it: http://safeshare.tv/v/ss565a4cef31318
and
Son of a gun:
and finally:
It was a man’s world, but along came Hillary. In this video covering the “bestest book ever written,” you’ll spend story time with your Afterburner host as he takes you through her college and law school life, her work “fighting for justice” and her marriage to former President Bill Clinton. There’s also, of course, her life of public service to her country — from the Clinton Foundation, to the Middle East and much, much more.
“And no matter what Hillary does next, if she wants to change the world, she will find a way. She will do anything…anything…”
Gather around, boys and girls.
Watch the video here.
====
Glick clicks! See 3 below.)
===
Dick
=======================================================================
1) Rubio Blisters Trump Over Immigration, Hiring Foreign Workers
By Greg Richter
Florida Sen. Marco Rubio launched a blistering attack against front-runner Donald Trump over his position on illegal immigration on Thursday, quickly accusing Trump of switching positions on illegal immigration for political gain.
The senator said that the New York billionaire talks tough on the issue now, but previously said 2012 Republican candidate Mitt Romney lost his race against President Barack Obama for saying illegal immigration could be solved by self-deportation.
"A lot of these positions that he's taken now are new to him," Rubio said during the debate in Houston.
He said Romney lost in 2012 because he was a terrible candidate.
"Excuse me, he ran one terrible campaign," Trump said.
Rubio attacked Trump over a New York Times report that he hired people on HB-1 visas to work at his Florida Mar-a-Lago resort when 300 Americans had applied for the jobs.
Trump took credit for introducing illegal immigration into the debate, but Rubio challenged that, saying if he wants to make that claim he must also "acknowledge that, for example, you're only person on this stage that's ever been find for hiring people to work on your projects illegally."
"No, no, I'm the only one at this stage that's hired people," Trump shot back. "You haven't hired anybody. … You've had nothing but problems with your credit cards, etc."
"He hired workers from Poland," Rubio said, referring to the Times story.
Trump said that was "totally wrong," but Rubio urged people to look it up online.
"Fined $1 million for hiring Polish workers on one of his projects. He did it. That happened," Rubio said.
"I've hired tens of thousands of people over my lifetime. Tens of thousands," Trump said.
"Many from other countries instead of hiring Americans," Rubio said.
"Just be quiet. Let me talk," Trump said. "I've hired tens of thousands of people. He brings up something from 30 years ago, it worked out very well."
"Yeah, you paid $1 million," Rubio said.
"By the way, the laws were totally different," Trump said. "That was a whole different world."
"If he builds the wall the way he built Trump Tower, he'll be using illegal immigrant labor to do it," Rubio said.
The two then traded barbs, with Trump mentioning Rubio's past finances and Rubio bringing up the Trump University lawsuit.
"The second thing about the trade war, I don't understand," Rubio said, "because your clothes and the tie you wear are made in Mexico and in China. You'll be starting a trade war against your own clothes and suits."
1a)Are you supporting Trump, or do you know someone who is? Please tell me why (and/or please share this with Trump supporters you know). The reasons I have identified so far are:
The senator said that the New York billionaire talks tough on the issue now, but previously said 2012 Republican candidate Mitt Romney lost his race against President Barack Obama for saying illegal immigration could be solved by self-deportation.
"A lot of these positions that he's taken now are new to him," Rubio said during the debate in Houston.
Trump - who has won three out of four contests in the Republicans' selection of a presidential nominee and may reap big gains when 11 states make their choices on Tuesday - scoffed at Rubio's charge.
"Excuse me, he ran one terrible campaign," Trump said.
Rubio attacked Trump over a New York Times report that he hired people on HB-1 visas to work at his Florida Mar-a-Lago resort when 300 Americans had applied for the jobs.
Trump took credit for introducing illegal immigration into the debate, but Rubio challenged that, saying if he wants to make that claim he must also "acknowledge that, for example, you're only person on this stage that's ever been find for hiring people to work on your projects illegally."
"No, no, I'm the only one at this stage that's hired people," Trump shot back. "You haven't hired anybody. … You've had nothing but problems with your credit cards, etc."
"He hired workers from Poland," Rubio said, referring to the Times story.
Trump said that was "totally wrong," but Rubio urged people to look it up online.
"Fined $1 million for hiring Polish workers on one of his projects. He did it. That happened," Rubio said.
"I've hired tens of thousands of people over my lifetime. Tens of thousands," Trump said.
"Many from other countries instead of hiring Americans," Rubio said.
"Just be quiet. Let me talk," Trump said. "I've hired tens of thousands of people. He brings up something from 30 years ago, it worked out very well."
"Yeah, you paid $1 million," Rubio said.
"By the way, the laws were totally different," Trump said. "That was a whole different world."
"If he builds the wall the way he built Trump Tower, he'll be using illegal immigrant labor to do it," Rubio said.
The two then traded barbs, with Trump mentioning Rubio's past finances and Rubio bringing up the Trump University lawsuit.
"The second thing about the trade war, I don't understand," Rubio said, "because your clothes and the tie you wear are made in Mexico and in China. You'll be starting a trade war against your own clothes and suits."
1a)Are you supporting Trump, or do you know someone who is? Please tell me why (and/or please share this with Trump supporters you know). The reasons I have identified so far are:
1) You're fed up with politicians and you want something totally different.
2) You feel like our nation has become weak, and we need to be strong again. You want someone with a real backbone who is going to stand up to China, Isis, and all of the other threats to our country.
3) You like the fact that he can't be bought.
4) You believe he can “make this country great again.”
5) You think his business acumen will help stabilize and restart the economy.
6) You're tired of all the PC bs.
7) You feel like he's the only one who can beat Hilary.
8) You don't love him, but you feel like he's going to win, so if you can't beat him, join him.
I am not going to demonize Trump or those who are supporting him. I don’t think he’s evil, and I don’t think you have to be crazy or stupid to vote for him. Everyone is entitled to his or her opinion, and obviously we all see things differently.
That said, I do feel that Trump is not the right man for the job of president, and I feel that it could be very detrimental to our country if we put him in office. So I’d like to address the reasons that people are backing him which I’ve listed above, and I’d be very happy to discuss this with anyone in a civilized, rational way.
1) Fed up with politicians – The vast majority of Americans (if not people worldwide) seem to feel this way, and understandably so. Politics is a dirty sport. Even good people who get involved in politics can be corrupted either by the power itself, or by the system which directly links their job to the approval of a wide array of constituents. The best politicians are those who are clear and honest about their values and stick to them regardless of the way the wind blows. But admittedly, these types of politicians are hard to find. That said, is it really a good idea to put someone in the office of president who has no prior experience with politics? Would you hire someone to run your company who has no previous practice in your industry? Even if the person has proven him or herself talented and successful in other industries, wouldn't it be better to groom him/her first in a junior level position before giving over the reins completely? While I understand and sympathize with the antipathy toward politicians, I find it really hard to understand the willingness to take such a chance on someone just because he's very different from those who have come before him. Consider the stakes here - we're giving the person the keys to the kingdom, the most powerful position in the entire world! What would lead us to think that Trump is ready or worthy of that consummate power? Just because he’s not a politician? That's quite a gamble! I would refer to that as irresponsible reactivism. It’s fine to want something different, but we need to be responsible and not just reactive.
2) The need for strength – Most Americans would wholeheartedly agree that our country has forfeited the position of strength and authority that it once held. The current administration’s desire for a more equitable international playing field has left a power vacuum that has been filled by a variety of unsavory forces. But there are other candidates – namely all of the other Republican candidates – who believe, as Trump does, that we need to refocus on American strength. Wouldn’t it be better to have a strong president who also has strong diplomatic skills and a strong understanding of global geopolitics? I am not bashing Trump by pointing out that he is woefully uneducated on international relations – that has never been his field. We would be much better served, and much more secure, if we have a commander in chief who knows what the Nuclear Triad is and who has been a longtime student of governance, military history, and diplomacy.
3) Can’t be bought – Wouldn’t it be great to have a president who is consistent in his positions and his policy decisions regardless of the pressures of lobbyists and special interest groups? It’s definitely true that Trump is unabashed in his opinions and more than willing to say things that are offensive and outrageous. But while that can be a good thing in many ways, it seems to me that a president is the representative of the entire country, and that it is incumbent upon him to consider opinions that are contrary to his own. The country’s increasing polarization and uber-partisanship has benefited no one. Both republicans and democrats will admit that there is a chasm in congress that inhibits progress and threatens to tear the system apart. What we need now is a president who is clear in his convictions, but is simultaneously ready to reach across the aisle and unite the country. While Trump has been vague and evasive about his positions on a variety of issues, one thing his campaign has established decisively is that he is a polarizing and divisive figure, which is certainly not in keeping with the values of equality and brotherhood on which the country was established.
4) Making the country great again – What a noble ambition! And what a terrific slogan. It was first used by Ronald Reagan in 1979. More recently, Trump applied to trademark it for his campaign. But how exactly does he plan to do so? It’s one thing to have lofty goals – it’s another to implement a series of policies that will effectuate those goals. Trump is an accomplished marketeer and entertainer, but when he is asked for specific policies or specific advisers, he weaves and dodges like a prizefighter and retreats behind generalities and catchphrases that attempt to obfuscate his inexperience. (For a great article on the glaring differences between Reagan and Trump, go here:http://www.realclearpolitics.com/articles/2015/08/23/trump_is_no_reagan_127851.html)
5) Business Acumen – No one can deny Trump’s financial success or his many entrepreneurial triumphs. But it is also on the public record that he has controlled several companies that have declared bankruptcy on multiple occasions. Of course it is true that every success story has moments of failure interspersed. But Trump’s bankruptcies have adversely affected many others who were counting on him and his word. While Trump has weathered his financial crises, many of those who were employed or hired by him did not. The contractors and tradesmen on the Taj Mahal casino, for example, were left destitute when they were unpaid for the work they had done. Concern for the average worker does not seem to have been as much of a priority for Trump as his own profit and advancement. Additionally, the correlation between Trump’s financial successes in real estate and entertainment and the economic recovery of the country is sketchy at best. Every enterprise has its particulars, and there is no telling that success in one will translate to another. The notion that Trump’s riches will lead to riches for all is hopeful and without foundation.
6) Tired of PC – Trump says it as he sees it. There’s definitely something refreshing about that in a time when people are forced to weigh out every word. But there is also something to be said for being courteous and sensitive and maintaining a certain dignity in public discourse. Isn’t there a difference between the way you talk with your buddy and the way you’d speak to a client or to someone who didn’t know you well? Isn’t there a certain propriety and decorum which we expect from, and admire in, our leaders and role models? Perhaps the dumbing down of culture is inevitable, but do we really want to cheapen the institution of the presidency with the type of vulgar and demeaning discourse that has characterized Trump’s campaign?
7) Beating Hillary – If you’re a member of the GOP, or an independent or democrat who is disturbed by the increasingly frequent revelations of Clinton’s improprieties, obviously beating Hilary in the general election has to be the primary factor in your choice of a republican nominee. According to the polls, Trump would lose to Clinton by a wide margin. Trump currently has roughly a third of the GOP vote, which may get him the nomination, but he will get very few if any percent of the Democratic vote. Hillary, if she is not indicted, would get the vast majority of the Democratic vote - even those who don't like or trust her will vote for her just to keep Trump out of office - and most centrists who could be swayed either way will either vote Hillary or abstain. According to the current polls (http://fivethirtyeight.com/features/its-rubio-or-bust-for-republicans-who-want-to-win/), Rubio is the only GOP candidate who can win in a general election. He would take the centrists and those Democrats who can't stand Hillary but could tolerate a Republican who has proven himself willing to reach across the aisle.
8) If you can’t beat him, join him – It seems to be a foregone conclusion for many that Trump is going to win the republican nomination. They say they’re not fans of Trump, but they find him much preferable to Hillary. For some reason, they’ve already bypassed the primaries and have moved onto the general election. It’s true that Trump is far ahead in the delegate count, but it is not true that he has clinched the nomination. There is still time to consolidate energies around one of the other candidates in order to put forward a nominee that can unite the party and the country. But that time is quickly slipping away. Those who are firmly entrenched in the Trump camp will continue to back him in spite of his liabilities and lack of experience – but those who believe that the country deserves a more polished, seasoned, and professional leader should seize the moment to make their feelings known and challenge those who are boarding the Trump bandwagon because they erroneously believe the race is over.
1b)Who Won Tonight's Debate?
By Kevin Boyd
The 10th presidential debate definitely had plenty of fireworks. Ted Cruz and Marco Rubio brought the kitchen sink against Donald Trump. Well, that’s not true. Cruz and Rubio brought the stove, the toilets, the dressers, and the locomotive. They hit Trump with everything they got.
However, the question is will this have an impact? Here’s what I think.
1)Ted Cruz: Cruz is my winner tonight. He landed blows against Trump and most importantly his blows on Trump were substantive. Cruz made a very good point pointing out that Trump has supported liberals in the past. However, I’m not sure that line will stuck on Trump. But Cruz’s attacks on Trump as a “Washington deal maker” may work. Cruz also landed a couple of blows on Marco Rubio. Cruz was tough but substantive.
2) Marco Rubio: Rubio was finally aggressive against Donald Trump. The question is why did it take so long? Rubio hit Trump on hiring illegal Polish workers, allegations of fraud over Trump University, and the use of H1B visa workers. This is a line of attack that may have some effect. However, Trump did nail him as a liar when he tried to walk back his DACA position. Rubio also may have come off too petty at times.
3) John Kasich: Kasich did well. He came off as the adult in the room. He may actually get some support tonight from those sick of Cruz/Rubio/Trump.
4) Ben Carson: Had the line of the night when he said “Why doesn’t anyone attack me?” to protest his lack of talk time. Other than that, irrelevant.
5) Donald Trump: This was Trump’s worst debate. He didn’t get a knockout blow on either Cruz or Rubio. However, Trump wasn’t knocked out either. He hit Rubio with a line “You haven’t hired anyone” in response to Rubio’s attacks on his hiring practices.
However, Cruz and Rubio got some lines in that could be used in future attacks against him. Trump’s claim in the post-debate spin that he’s being audited because he’s a “strong Christian” is odd to say the least. I do think Cruz and Rubio did damage tonight. However, I’m not sure it was enough to move the dials in Super Tuesday states. Neither one scored the knockout blow they needed.
The clear losers were CNN who lost control of the debate on numerous occasions. Wolf Blitzer spent most of his time breaking up fights between the top 3. I wonder how many voters were turned off by it. -
1c) At stake is something far more precious than the future of the Republican Party.
By ELIOT A. COHEN
Eliot Asher Cohen is the Robert E. Osgood Professor of Strategic Studies at the Paul H. Nitze School of Advanced International Studies and the Carey Business School, both at the Johns Hopkins University.
Winston Churchill recalls in his memoir how as a young man he came to terms with hypocrisy, discovering the “enormous and unquestionably helpful part that humbug plays in the social life of a great people.” Inconsistency between public virtue and private vice is not altogether a bad thing. No matter how nasty the realities are, maintaining respectable appearances, minding the civilities, and adhering to the conventions is part of what keeps civilization going.
The current problem goes beyond excruciatingly bad manners. What we increasingly lack, and have lacked for some time, is a sense of the moral underpinning of republican (small r) government. Manners and morals maintain a free state as much as laws do, as Tocqueville observed long ago, and when a certain culture of virtue dies, so too does something of what makes democracy work. Old-fashioned words like integrity, selflessness, frugality, gravitas, and modesty rarely rate a mention in modern descriptions of the good life—is it surprising that they don’t come up in politics, either?
William James, a pacifist who understood this point, argued in “The Moral Equivalent War” that “intrepidity, contempt of softness, surrender of private interest, obedience to command must still remain the rock upon which states are built—unless, indeed, we wish for dangerous reactions against commonwealths fit only for contempt.” Just so. Trump might have become a less upsetting figure if he had not wriggled through the clutches of the draft in the 1960s.
Trump’s rise is only one among many signs that something has gone profoundly amiss in our popular culture.It is related to the hysteria that has swept through many campuses, as students call for the suppression of various forms of free speech and the provision of “safe spaces” where they will not be challenged by ideas with which they disagree. The rise of Trump and the fall of free speech in academia are equal signs that we are losing the intellectual sturdiness and honesty without which a republic cannot thrive.
There are other traces of rot. They can be seen in the excuses that political leaders and experts have begun to make as they cozy up to Trump. Like French bureaucrats in the age of Vichy, or Italian aristocrats in the age of Mussolini, they are already saying things like: “I can make it less bad,” “He’s different in private,” “He has his good points,” “He is evolving,” and “Someone has to do the work of government.” Of course, some politicians—Chris Christie, that would be you—simply skip the pretense and indulge in spite or opportunism as the mood takes them.
This is not the first age in which politicians have taken morally disgraceful positions, even by the standards of their time. In the 1950s and 1960s there were flagrant bigots in Congress. But many of them were in other ways public spirited—think Senator Richard Russell of Georgia, for example, who presided with dignity over the Senate Armed Services Committee for nearly two decades. Lyndon Johnson may not have opposed the evils of his time forthrightly, but he used the full extent of his wiliness to break through the institutionalized discrimination of the South. The villainy of today takes softer forms, but it is pervasive—politicians swallow their principles (such as they are) and endorse a candidate they despise, turn on a judge they once praised, denounce the opposition for behavior identical to their own, or press their branch’s prerogatives and rules to the Constitutional limit, and beyond.
American culture is, in short, nastier, more nihilistic, and far less inhibited than ever before. It breeds alternating bouts of cynicism and hysteria, and now it has given us Trump.
The Republican Party as we know it may die of Trump. If it does, it will have succumbed in part because many of its leaders chose not to fight for the Party of Lincoln, which is a set of ideas about how to govern a country, rather than an organization clawing for political and personal advantage. What is at stake, however, is something much more precious than even a great political party. To an extent unimaginable for a very long time, the moral keel of free government is showing cracks. It is not easy to discern how we shall mend them.
1c) At stake is something far more precious than the future of the Republican Party.
By ELIOT A. COHEN
Eliot Asher Cohen is the Robert E. Osgood Professor of Strategic Studies at the Paul H. Nitze School of Advanced International Studies and the Carey Business School, both at the Johns Hopkins University.
How on earth did this happen? Some, like Robert Kagan, think it is solely the result of a prolonged self-poisoning of the Republican Party. A number of shrewd writers—David Frum, Tucker Carlson, Ben Domenech, Charles Murray, and Joel Kotkin being among the best—have probed deeper. Not surprisingly, they are all some flavor of conservative. On the liberal (or, as they say now, progressive) end of the spectrum the reaction has been chiefly one of smugness (“well, that’s what the Republicans are, we knew it all along”), schadenfreude (“pass the popcorn”), and chicken-counting (“now we can get a head start on Hillary’s first Inaugural”). Their insouciance will be stripped away if Trump becomes the nominee and turns his cunning, ferocity, and charm on an inept, boring politician trailing scandals as old as dubious investments with a 1,000 percent return and as fresh as a homebrew email server. He might lose. He might, however, very well tear her to pieces. Clearly, he relishes the prospect, because he despises the politicians he has bought over the years.
Politicians have, since ancient Greece, lied, pandered, and whored. They have taken bribes, connived, and perjured themselves. But in recent times—in the United States, at any rate—there has never been any politician quite as openly debased and debauched as Donald Trump. Truman and Nixon could be vulgar, but they kept the cuss words for private use. Presidents have chewed out journalists, but which of them would have suggested that an elegant and intelligent woman asking a reasonable question was dripping menstrual blood? LBJ, Kennedy, and Clinton could all treat women as commodities to be used for their pleasure, but none went on the radio with the likes of Howard Stern to discuss the women they had bedded and the finer points of their anatomies. All politicians like the sound of their own names, but Roosevelt named the greatest dam in the United States after his defeated predecessor, Herbert Hoover. Can one doubt what Trump would have christened it?
That otherwise sober people do not find Trump’s insults and insane demands outrageous (Mexico will have to pay for a wall! Japan will have to pay for protection!) says something about a larger moral and cultural collapse. His language is the language of the comments sections of once-great newspapers. Their editors know that the online versions of their publications attract the vicious, the bigoted, and the foulmouthed. But they keep those comments sections going in the hope of getting eyeballs on the page.
The current problem goes beyond excruciatingly bad manners. What we increasingly lack, and have lacked for some time, is a sense of the moral underpinning of republican (small r) government. Manners and morals maintain a free state as much as laws do, as Tocqueville observed long ago, and when a certain culture of virtue dies, so too does something of what makes democracy work. Old-fashioned words like integrity, selflessness, frugality, gravitas, and modesty rarely rate a mention in modern descriptions of the good life—is it surprising that they don’t come up in politics, either?
There are other traces of rot. They can be seen in the excuses that political leaders and experts have begun to make as they cozy up to Trump. Like French bureaucrats in the age of Vichy, or Italian aristocrats in the age of Mussolini, they are already saying things like: “I can make it less bad,” “He’s different in private,” “He has his good points,” “He is evolving,” and “Someone has to do the work of government.” Of course, some politicians—Chris Christie, that would be you—simply skip the pretense and indulge in spite or opportunism as the mood takes them.
This is not the first age in which politicians have taken morally disgraceful positions, even by the standards of their time. In the 1950s and 1960s there were flagrant bigots in Congress. But many of them were in other ways public spirited—think Senator Richard Russell of Georgia, for example, who presided with dignity over the Senate Armed Services Committee for nearly two decades. Lyndon Johnson may not have opposed the evils of his time forthrightly, but he used the full extent of his wiliness to break through the institutionalized discrimination of the South. The villainy of today takes softer forms, but it is pervasive—politicians swallow their principles (such as they are) and endorse a candidate they despise, turn on a judge they once praised, denounce the opposition for behavior identical to their own, or press their branch’s prerogatives and rules to the Constitutional limit, and beyond.
The rot is cultural. It is no coincidence that Trump was the star of a “reality” show. He is the beneficiary of an amoral celebrity culture devoid of all content save an omnipresent lubriciousness. He is a kind of male Kim Kardashian, and about as politically serious. In the context of culture, if not (yet) politics, he is unremarkable; the daily entertainments of today are both tawdry and self-consciously, corrosively ironic. Ours is an age when young people have become used to getting news, of a sort, from Jon Stewart and Steven Colbert, when an earlier generation watched Walter Cronkite and David Brinkley. It is the difference between giggling with young, sneering hipsters and listening to serious adults. Go to YouTube and look at old episodes of Profiles in Courage, if you can find them—a wildly successful television series based on the book nominally authored by John F. Kennedy, which celebrated an individual’s, often a politician’s, courage in standing alone against a crowd, even a crowd with whose politics the audience agreed. The show of comparable popularity today is House of Cards. Bill Clinton has said that he loves it.
The Republican Party as we know it may die of Trump. If it does, it will have succumbed in part because many of its leaders chose not to fight for the Party of Lincoln, which is a set of ideas about how to govern a country, rather than an organization clawing for political and personal advantage. What is at stake, however, is something much more precious than even a great political party. To an extent unimaginable for a very long time, the moral keel of free government is showing cracks. It is not easy to discern how we shall mend them.
2)
World burns as Obama fiddles: Territory, power and victory are so 20th century
State of the world, Year Eight of Barack Obama:
(1) In the South China Sea, on a speck of land of disputed sovereignty far from its borders, China has just installed anti-aircraft batteries and stationed fighter jets. This after China landed planes on an artificial island it created on another disputed island chain (the Spratlys, claimed by the Philippines, Malaysia, Taiwan and Vietnam). These facilities now function as forward bases for Beijing to challenge seven decades of American naval dominance of the Pacific Rim.
“China is clearly militarizing the South China Sea,” the commander of the U.S. Pacific Command told Congress on Tuesday. Its goal? “Hegemony in East Asia.”
(2) Syria. Russian intervention has turned the tide of war. Having rescued the Bashar Assad regime from collapse, relentless Russian bombing is destroying the rebel stronghold of Aleppo, Syria’s largest city, creating a massive new wave of refugees and demonstrating to the entire Middle East what a Great Power can achieve when it acts seriously.
The U.S. response? Repeated pathetic attempts by Secretary of State John Kerry to propitiate Russia (and its ally, Iran) in one collapsed peace conference after another. On Sunday, he stepped out to announce yet another “provisional agreement in principle” on “a cessation of hostilities” that the CIA director, the defense secretary and the chairman of the Joint Chiefs deem little more than a ruse.
(3) Ukraine. Having swallowed Crimea so thoroughly that no one even talks about it anymore, Russia continues to trample with impunity on the Minsk cease-fire agreements. Vladimir Putin is now again stirring the pot, intensifying the fighting, advancing his remorseless campaign to fracture and subordinate the Ukrainian state. Meanwhile, Obama still refuses to send the Ukrainians even defensive weapons.
(4) Iran. Last Thursday, Iran received its first shipment of S-300 anti-aircraft batteries from Russia, a major advance in developing immunity to any attack on its nuclear facilities. And it is negotiating an $8 billion arms deal with Russia that includes sophisticated combat aircraft. Like its ballistic missile tests, this conventional weapons shopping spree is a blatant violation of U.N. Security Council prohibitions. It was also a predictable — and predicted — consequence of the Iran nuclear deal that granted Iran $100 billion and normalized its relations with the world.
The U.S. response? Words.
Unlike gravitational waves, today’s strategic situation is not hard to discern. Three major have-not powers are seeking to overturn the post-Cold War status quo: Russia in Eastern Europe, China in East Asia, Iran in the Middle East. All are on the march.
To say nothing of the Islamic State, now extending its reach from Afghanistan to West Africa. The international order built over decades by the United States is crumbling.
In the face of which, what does Obama do? Go to Cuba.
Yes, Cuba. A supreme strategic irrelevance so dear to Obama’s anti-anti-Communist heart.
Is he at least going to celebrate progress in human rights and democracy — which Obama established last year as a precondition for any presidential visit? Of course not. When has Obama ever held to a red line? Indeed, since Obama began his “historic” normalization with Cuba, the repression has gotten worse. Last month, the regime arrested 1,414 political dissidents, the second-most ever recorded.
No matter. Amid global disarray and American decline, Obama sticks to his cherished concerns: Cuba, Guantanamo (about which he gave a rare televised address this week) and, of course, climate change.
Obama could not bestir himself to go to Paris in response to the various jihadi atrocities — sending Kerry instead “to share a big hug with Paris” (as Kerry explained) with James Taylor singing “You’ve Got a Friend” — but he did make an ostentatious three-day visit there for climate change.
So why not go to Havana? Sure, the barbarians are at the gates and pushing hard, knowing they will enjoy but 11 more months of minimal American resistance. But our passive President genuinely believes that such advances don’t really matter — that these disruptors are so on the wrong side of history, that their reaches for territory, power, victory are so 20th century.
Of course, it mattered greatly to the quarter-million slaughtered in Syria and the millions more exiled. It feels all quite real to a dissolving Europe, an expanding China, a rising Iran, a metastasizing jihadism.
Not to the visionary Obama, however. He sees far beyond such ephemera. He knows what really matters: climate change, Gitmo and Cuba.
===================================================================================
3)
After his smashing back-to-back victories in the New Hampshire and South Carolina primaries and the Nevada caucuses, going into next week’s Super Tuesday contests in 12 states, Republican presidential hopeful Donald Trump looks increasingly unbeatable.
Trump’s campaign is based on his capacity to resonate two deeply felt frustrations harbored by a large cross-section of American citizens.
The many millions of Americans who are sick of being called racist, chauvinist, homophobic, privileged or extremist every time they breathe feel that in Trump they have found their voice.
Then there is that gnawing sense that under Obama, America has been transformed from history’s greatest winner into history’s biggest sucker. Trump’s continuous exposition on his superhuman deal-making talents speaks to this fear.
Trump’s ability to viscerally connect to the deep-seated concerns of American voters and assuage them frees him from the normal campaign requirement of developing plans to accomplish his campaign promises.
Trump’s supporters don’t care that his economic policies contradict one another. They don’t care that his foreign policy declarations are a muddle of contradictions.
They hate the establishment and they want to believe him.
This then brings us to the question of how a president Donald Trump would govern.
Because he knows how to viscerally connect to the public, Trump will undoubtedly be a popular president. But since he has no clear philosophical or ideological underpinning, his policies will likely be inconsistent and opportunistic.
In this, a Trump presidency will be a stark contrast to Obama’s hyper-ideological tenure in office.
So, too, his presidency will be a marked contrast to a similarly ideologically driven Clinton or Sanders administration, since both will more or less continue to enact Obama’s domestic and foreign policies.
The US is far from the only country steeped in uncertainty and frustration today.
Today, the peoples of Western Europe are behaving much like the Americans in their increased rejection of the political and cultural elites. Like Trump’s growing band of supporters, Western Europeans are increasingly embracing populists.
Whether these leaders come from the Right or the Left, they all make a similar pledge to restore their nations to a previous glory.
These promises are based as well on a common rejection of the European Union. Like their voters, populist European politicians believe that the EU is a bureaucratic monstrosity that has pulverized and seeks to blot out their national characters while it seizes their national sovereignty.
Due to this growing popular opposition to the EU, establishment leaders throughout Western Europe find themselves fighting for their political survival. Whether their desire to exit the EU owes to its open borders policies in the face of massive Muslim immigration or to the euro debt crisis, with each passing month, the very concept of a unified Europe loses its appeal for more and more Europeans.
On June 23, this growing disenchantment is liable to bring about the beginning of the EU’s breakup.That day, British voters will determine whether or not the United Kingdom will remain in the EU.
In recent days, several commentators have claimed that Johnson is Britain’s Donald Trump.
Like Trump, Johnson is able to tap into deep-seated public dissatisfaction with the political and cultural elites and serve as a voice for the disaffected.
If Johnson is able to convince a majority of British voters to support an exit from the EU, then several other EU member states are likely to follow in Britain’s wake.
The exit of states from the EU will cause a political and economic upheaval in Europe with repercussions far beyond its borders. Just as a Trump presidency will usher in an era of high turbulence and uncertainty in US economic and foreign policies, so a post-breakup EU and Western Europe will replace Brussels’ consistent policies with policies that are more varied, and unstable.
For Israel, instability is not necessarily a bad thing. For the past several years, we have consistently suffered under the stable, unswerving anti-Israel policies of both the EU and the Obama administration.
Our inability to influence these policies was brought home last week with the government’s announcement that it is renewing Israel’s diplomatic dialogue with the EU.
Following the EU’s announcement in November that it was implementing its bigoted, arguably unlawful labeling policy against Israeli goods produced beyond the 1949 armistice lines, the government announced that Israel was suspending its diplomatic dialogue with the EU. The government hoped that by forcing Europe to pay a diplomatic price for its hostility, Brussels would back down.
But as it turned out, the ban made no impact on the EU, whose only clear, consistent foreign policy is to oppose Israel. And so, last week, the government cried uncle and announced that it is reinstituting its diplomatic dialogue with the EU.
A senior official explained that Israel chose to end the dispute because it wished to avoid having the labeling policy used as an issue in the debate about the future of the EU. EU champions made it clear to Israeli officials that if the labeling issue wasn’t swept under the rug, then Israel would be liable to be blamed if EU member states opt to exit the union.
Clearly the government is right to seek to avoid having Israel used as an issue in the debates on the future of the EU. But then again, it is also clear that Israel’s foes – led by the likes of the Belgians – don’t need an excuse to attack us.
On the other hand, by backing down, Israel signaled to its European opponents that they can escalate their war against us with impunity.
Moreover, despite the threats of EU officials, it is fairly ridiculous to think that they future of the EU has anything to do with how Israel responds to its political war against us. The Europeans who wish to exit the EU, like those who wish to remain, feel the way they do because of issues that have little to do with Israel.
Beyond the narrow question of how to respond to the labeling assault, from Israel’s perspective, the rise of Trump like the rise of Johnson and the anti-EU forces in Europe indicates that in the coming years, both the US and Europe are likely to move in one of two directions – and Israel has to be prepared for both eventualities.
If the next US president is a Democrat, and if the EU remains intact, then Israel can expect for its relations with the US and the EU to remain in crisis mode for the foreseeable future.
If Trump is elected president and if Britain leads the charge of nations out of the EU, then Israel can expect its relations with both the US and Europe to be marked by turbulence and uncertainty that can lead in a positive direction or a negative direction, or even to both directions at the same time.
So, too, under Trump, the US may send forces to confront Iran one day, only to announce that Trump is embarking on negotiations to get a sweetheart deal with the ayatollahs the next.
Or perhaps all of these things will happen simultaneously.
As for Europe, whereas the EU stalwarts will likely ratchet up their hostility toward Israel, and we may even see the likes of Sweden or Belgium cut off relations with us, states that leave the EU may be willing to vastly improve their bilateral relations with Israel diplomatically, economically and militarily.
Moreover, if the EU begins to break up, it is likely that the European economy will contract.
As Israel’s largest trading partner, a European recession will hurt Israel.
Whether Trump rises or falls, is defeated by a Republican rival or by a Democratic opponent, and whether or not the EU breaks apart or remains intact, Israel’s leaders need to prepare for the plausible scenarios of either prolonged crises in relations with the US, Europe or both, or turbulent relations that are unpredictable and subject to constant change with one or both of them.
Under these circumstances, the first conclusion that needs to be drawn is that now is not the time to expand our military dependence on the US. Consequently, Defense Minister Moshe Ya’alon should not conclude an agreement for expanded US security assistance to Israel for the next decade.
Beyond that, Israel needs to expand on the steps that Prime Minister Benjamin Netanyahu and Foreign Ministry director-general Dore Gold are already taking to expand Israel’s network of alliances to Africa and Asia. Kenyan President Uhuru Kenyatta’s visit this week marked just the latest achievement of this vital project. Israel’s diplomatic opening to Asia and Africa needs to be matched by similar military and economic openings and expansions of ties.
In the final analysis, Trump’s rise in America and the rise of the populists in Europe is yet another indication of the West’s growing identity crisis fueled by its economic, social, military and cultural weakness. Israel needs to read the writing on the wall and act appropriately lest we become a casualty of that identity crisis.
3)
Trump, the EU Crack-Up, and Israel
By Caroline GlickAfter his smashing back-to-back victories in the New Hampshire and South Carolina primaries and the Nevada caucuses, going into next week’s Super Tuesday contests in 12 states, Republican presidential hopeful Donald Trump looks increasingly unbeatable.
What accounts for the billionaire populist’s success? And if Trump does become the next US president, what sort of leader will the former reality television star be?
Trump is popular because he has a rare ability to channel the deep-seated frustrations that much of the American public harbors toward its political and cultural elites.
Trump’s presidential bid isn’t based on specific, defined economic or foreign policy platforms or plans. Indeed, it isn’t clear that he even has any.
Trump’s campaign is based on his capacity to resonate two deeply felt frustrations harbored by a large cross-section of American citizens.
As The Wall Street Journal’s Daniel Henninger explained recently, a very large group of Americans is frustrated – or enraged – by the intellectual and social terror exercised upon them by the commissars of political correctness.
Trump’s support levels rise each time he says something “politically incorrect.” His candidacy took off last summer when he promised to build a wall along the Mexican border. It rose again last November when, following the Islamic massacre in Paris, he said that if elected he will ban Muslim immigration to the US.
The many millions of Americans who are sick of being called racist, chauvinist, homophobic, privileged or extremist every time they breathe feel that in Trump they have found their voice.
Then there is that gnawing sense that under Obama, America has been transformed from history’s greatest winner into history’s biggest sucker. Trump’s continuous exposition on his superhuman deal-making talents speaks to this fear.
Trump’s ability to viscerally connect to the deep-seated concerns of American voters and assuage them frees him from the normal campaign requirement of developing plans to accomplish his campaign promises.
Trump’s supporters don’t care that his economic policies contradict one another. They don’t care that his foreign policy declarations are a muddle of contradictions.
They hate the establishment and they want to believe him.
This then brings us to the question of how a president Donald Trump would govern.
Because he knows how to viscerally connect to the public, Trump will undoubtedly be a popular president. But since he has no clear philosophical or ideological underpinning, his policies will likely be inconsistent and opportunistic.
In this, a Trump presidency will be a stark contrast to Obama’s hyper-ideological tenure in office.
So, too, his presidency will be a marked contrast to a similarly ideologically driven Clinton or Sanders administration, since both will more or less continue to enact Obama’s domestic and foreign policies.
The US is far from the only country steeped in uncertainty and frustration today.
Today, the peoples of Western Europe are behaving much like the Americans in their increased rejection of the political and cultural elites. Like Trump’s growing band of supporters, Western Europeans are increasingly embracing populists.
Whether these leaders come from the Right or the Left, they all make a similar pledge to restore their nations to a previous glory.
These promises are based as well on a common rejection of the European Union. Like their voters, populist European politicians believe that the EU is a bureaucratic monstrosity that has pulverized and seeks to blot out their national characters while it seizes their national sovereignty.
Due to this growing popular opposition to the EU, establishment leaders throughout Western Europe find themselves fighting for their political survival. Whether their desire to exit the EU owes to its open borders policies in the face of massive Muslim immigration or to the euro debt crisis, with each passing month, the very concept of a unified Europe loses its appeal for more and more Europeans.
On June 23, this growing disenchantment is liable to bring about the beginning of the EU’s breakup.That day, British voters will determine whether or not the United Kingdom will remain in the EU.
Popular London Mayor and Conservative MP Boris Johnson is now leading the campaign calling for Britain to leave the EU against the will of Prime Minister David Cameron and the Conservative party establishment.
In recent days, several commentators have claimed that Johnson is Britain’s Donald Trump.
Like Trump, Johnson is able to tap into deep-seated public dissatisfaction with the political and cultural elites and serve as a voice for the disaffected.
If Johnson is able to convince a majority of British voters to support an exit from the EU, then several other EU member states are likely to follow in Britain’s wake.
The exit of states from the EU will cause a political and economic upheaval in Europe with repercussions far beyond its borders. Just as a Trump presidency will usher in an era of high turbulence and uncertainty in US economic and foreign policies, so a post-breakup EU and Western Europe will replace Brussels’ consistent policies with policies that are more varied, and unstable.
For Israel, instability is not necessarily a bad thing. For the past several years, we have consistently suffered under the stable, unswerving anti-Israel policies of both the EU and the Obama administration.
Our inability to influence these policies was brought home last week with the government’s announcement that it is renewing Israel’s diplomatic dialogue with the EU.
Following the EU’s announcement in November that it was implementing its bigoted, arguably unlawful labeling policy against Israeli goods produced beyond the 1949 armistice lines, the government announced that Israel was suspending its diplomatic dialogue with the EU. The government hoped that by forcing Europe to pay a diplomatic price for its hostility, Brussels would back down.
But as it turned out, the ban made no impact on the EU, whose only clear, consistent foreign policy is to oppose Israel. And so, last week, the government cried uncle and announced that it is reinstituting its diplomatic dialogue with the EU.
A senior official explained that Israel chose to end the dispute because it wished to avoid having the labeling policy used as an issue in the debate about the future of the EU. EU champions made it clear to Israeli officials that if the labeling issue wasn’t swept under the rug, then Israel would be liable to be blamed if EU member states opt to exit the union.
Clearly the government is right to seek to avoid having Israel used as an issue in the debates on the future of the EU. But then again, it is also clear that Israel’s foes – led by the likes of the Belgians – don’t need an excuse to attack us.
On the other hand, by backing down, Israel signaled to its European opponents that they can escalate their war against us with impunity.
Moreover, despite the threats of EU officials, it is fairly ridiculous to think that they future of the EU has anything to do with how Israel responds to its political war against us. The Europeans who wish to exit the EU, like those who wish to remain, feel the way they do because of issues that have little to do with Israel.
Beyond the narrow question of how to respond to the labeling assault, from Israel’s perspective, the rise of Trump like the rise of Johnson and the anti-EU forces in Europe indicates that in the coming years, both the US and Europe are likely to move in one of two directions – and Israel has to be prepared for both eventualities.
If the next US president is a Democrat, and if the EU remains intact, then Israel can expect for its relations with the US and the EU to remain in crisis mode for the foreseeable future.
If Trump is elected president and if Britain leads the charge of nations out of the EU, then Israel can expect its relations with both the US and Europe to be marked by turbulence and uncertainty that can lead in a positive direction or a negative direction, or even to both directions at the same time.
Just as Trump has stated both that he will support Israel and be neutral toward Israel, so we can expect for Trump to stand by Israel one day and to rebuke it angrily, even brutally, the next day.
So, too, under Trump, the US may send forces to confront Iran one day, only to announce that Trump is embarking on negotiations to get a sweetheart deal with the ayatollahs the next.
Or perhaps all of these things will happen simultaneously.
As for Europe, whereas the EU stalwarts will likely ratchet up their hostility toward Israel, and we may even see the likes of Sweden or Belgium cut off relations with us, states that leave the EU may be willing to vastly improve their bilateral relations with Israel diplomatically, economically and militarily.
Moreover, if the EU begins to break up, it is likely that the European economy will contract.
As Israel’s largest trading partner, a European recession will hurt Israel.
Whether Trump rises or falls, is defeated by a Republican rival or by a Democratic opponent, and whether or not the EU breaks apart or remains intact, Israel’s leaders need to prepare for the plausible scenarios of either prolonged crises in relations with the US, Europe or both, or turbulent relations that are unpredictable and subject to constant change with one or both of them.
Under these circumstances, the first conclusion that needs to be drawn is that now is not the time to expand our military dependence on the US. Consequently, Defense Minister Moshe Ya’alon should not conclude an agreement for expanded US security assistance to Israel for the next decade.
Beyond that, Israel needs to expand on the steps that Prime Minister Benjamin Netanyahu and Foreign Ministry director-general Dore Gold are already taking to expand Israel’s network of alliances to Africa and Asia. Kenyan President Uhuru Kenyatta’s visit this week marked just the latest achievement of this vital project. Israel’s diplomatic opening to Asia and Africa needs to be matched by similar military and economic openings and expansions of ties.
In the final analysis, Trump’s rise in America and the rise of the populists in Europe is yet another indication of the West’s growing identity crisis fueled by its economic, social, military and cultural weakness. Israel needs to read the writing on the wall and act appropriately lest we become a casualty of that identity crisis.
==========================================================
No comments:
Post a Comment