What is this: https://www.youtube.com/v/XTAULdznHug%26autoplay=1%26autohide=1%26showinf
===
This from my British girl friend:
===U N SurveyLast month, a world-wide telephone survey was conducted by the UN.The only question asked was:"Would you please give your honest opinion about possible solutions to thefood shortage in the rest of the world?"The survey was a complete failure because:In Eastern Europe they didn't know what "honest" meant.In Western Europe they didn't know what "shortage" meant.In Africa they didn't know what "food" meant.In China they didn't know what "opinion" meant.In the Middle East they didn't know what "solution" meant.In South America they didn't know what "please" meant.In the USA they didn't know what "the rest of the world" meant.And in Australia, New Zealand and Great Britain everyone hung up as soon asthey heard the Indian accent
New York Values - do they provide insight? You decide. (See 1 below.)
===
Allen West arrived on time from Dallas and we are enjoying having him with us. Looking forward to his address and the subsequent Q and A tomorrow evening and will report on his comments etc. in a subsequent memo.
At dinner tonight Allen made two observations that hit home:
a) America hungers for leadership
b) His concern remains, we may not have hit bottom.
I mentioned in a previous memo that I had an interesting visit from, Stuart Weeks, the grandson of FDR's Sec. of Commerce, Sinclair Weeks.
Stuart is interested in rallying interested citizens in embracing and returning to a "We The People" movement. He sent me the following in furtherance of his thinking. (See 2 below.)
Meanwhile, we attended Dana Perino's Book signing and discussion Saturday and she was charming, witty and gave some excellent insights. The Q and A session, after her talk, was abysmal because the questioners were more interested in being there than asking sensible questions.
Finally, we are also thoroughly enjoying having Col. (Ret.) Calton Savory and Carol with us this weekend. Carlton is the orthopedic surgeon who got me back on the tennis courts and in his previous life was chief of orthopedics at Walter Reed and upon leaving service became a senior member of The Hughston Clinic in Columbus , Ga. He retired this past December from Hughston.
===
Some just love the message of victim hood because it allows them to feel aggrieved. Others believe in self determination, the opportunities freedom to succeed and/or fail bring and rise above. There is a choice which path we take in life. Each decides for themselves.
Far too many of our college and university administrators are selling a false bill of good because they have learned to cower and have succumbed to pandering and the same for far too many politicians.
See “White Guilt” Video VA Students Were Forced to Watch
===
Could not happen to a nicer guy: "Hezbollah chief Sheikh Hassan Nasrallah is reportedly in Iran getting emergency medical treatment for cancer."
and
Then we can learn how to hit your wife properly according to the Islamic tradition of do only unto others. (See 3 below.)
===
Dick
========================================================================
1)To Understand Trump, You Have to Understand New York
By Daniel Greenfield
The conservative consensus around Trump has solidified into, "He's the devil" or "He's our savior." Either Trump is going to destroy the establishment and save us all. Or he's secretly in league with Hillary Clinton to rig the election. There's very little room for the middle ground here.
But Trump isn't either of these things. He's just Trump. And it's important to understand who he is. Instead of the narratives that the different sides are building around him.
Trump seems exotic in a Republican system dominated by D.C. insiders from northeastern suburbs and filled with southern and western candidates. But local politics in New York is filled with guys who have the same blend of liberal-conservative politics and talk and sound just like him.
Giuliani's political career really began with him yelling, "He blames it on me! He blames it on you! Bulls__t" at a police rally. The cops then took over City Hall chanting, "No justice, no police."
Christie's national rise began with the release of videos in which he berated union members and humiliated questioners. Republicans fell in love, at least until the infamous Obama hug happened. And yet the establishment forgets that some of its key members were begging a guy who has the same personality, attitude and style as Trump to run for president before the last election.
Call it New York values, but some of what Trump's critics object to is a New York-Jersey-Philly abrasive political style that puts a premium on "telling it like it is" at the expense of civility and sometimes substance. You can catch Bill O'Reilly doing the same thing on FOX News.
It's disingenuous for the establishment to pretend that Trump is some sort of complete break from civility. It's not. It's just New York Values taken to their most obnoxious extreme. If the establishment thought that President Chris "Numbn__s" Christie had enough class, why not Trump?
But the trouble with the common sense tough guy style in urban politics is that it compensates for weakness elsewhere. Giuliani and Christie were very tough in one specific area. In Giuliani's case that was crime and it was such a major issue for the city that some of his more liberal positions didn't matter. In national politics, those positions did matter when Giuliani ran for president.
But the positions did matter even in local politics. Giuliani did a great job cleaning up the city, but he didn't change the system. Today the city is once again wholly run by the left-wing machine. And if you don't change the system, then all you're doing is buying a little more time.
That's arguably the only thing Republicans have really been doing anyway since FDR.
The other thing to understand about this style of politics is that it reactively taps into the frustrations that people have toward the system. It doesn't offer a political insider critique of it, but a man on the street shout. Sometimes the people doing that understand the issues very well. They're just pitching it at the level of the angry voter.
But what makes Trump so frustrating is that he actually seems to be reacting. No one really believes that Obama finds out about his scandals from the media. It's plausible though that Trump arrives at his positions by watching FOX News or clicking through the Drudge Report and reacting to what he sees. If you listen to his explanation for his shift on Syrian migrants, that seems to be what happened.
Trump seems exotic in a Republican system dominated by D.C. insiders from northeastern suburbs and filled with southern and western candidates. But local politics in New York is filled with guys who have the same blend of liberal-conservative politics and talk and sound just like him.
Giuliani's political career really began with him yelling, "He blames it on me! He blames it on you! Bulls__t" at a police rally. The cops then took over City Hall chanting, "No justice, no police."
Christie's national rise began with the release of videos in which he berated union members and humiliated questioners. Republicans fell in love, at least until the infamous Obama hug happened. And yet the establishment forgets that some of its key members were begging a guy who has the same personality, attitude and style as Trump to run for president before the last election.
Call it New York values, but some of what Trump's critics object to is a New York-Jersey-Philly abrasive political style that puts a premium on "telling it like it is" at the expense of civility and sometimes substance. You can catch Bill O'Reilly doing the same thing on FOX News.
It's disingenuous for the establishment to pretend that Trump is some sort of complete break from civility. It's not. It's just New York Values taken to their most obnoxious extreme. If the establishment thought that President Chris "Numbn__s" Christie had enough class, why not Trump?
But the trouble with the common sense tough guy style in urban politics is that it compensates for weakness elsewhere. Giuliani and Christie were very tough in one specific area. In Giuliani's case that was crime and it was such a major issue for the city that some of his more liberal positions didn't matter. In national politics, those positions did matter when Giuliani ran for president.
But the positions did matter even in local politics. Giuliani did a great job cleaning up the city, but he didn't change the system. Today the city is once again wholly run by the left-wing machine. And if you don't change the system, then all you're doing is buying a little more time.
That's arguably the only thing Republicans have really been doing anyway since FDR.
The other thing to understand about this style of politics is that it reactively taps into the frustrations that people have toward the system. It doesn't offer a political insider critique of it, but a man on the street shout. Sometimes the people doing that understand the issues very well. They're just pitching it at the level of the angry voter.
But what makes Trump so frustrating is that he actually seems to be reacting. No one really believes that Obama finds out about his scandals from the media. It's plausible though that Trump arrives at his positions by watching FOX News or clicking through the Drudge Report and reacting to what he sees. If you listen to his explanation for his shift on Syrian migrants, that seems to be what happened.
The power of the reactive style is that it channels the exact same reactions that people had when hearing about some of the more shocking implications and facts about Syrian migrants, and realizing that another position was not only possible, but made more sense.
The average Republican voter is not a policy expert. Like Trump, he's often learning about some of these things for the first time. Trump is excellent at capturing that bar/barbershop angry reaction and it may even be completely authentic. His responses are much more relatable than that of the politician or the expert who already understands the issue. But reacting isn't leadership. Leaders are supposed to understand the issue. And when you can't know everything, you need to work from firm principles.
Here some conservatives object that Trump channels a conservative outrage machine, rather than conservative principles. And they're probably right. He isn't the only candidate in the race doing that. Conservatives won their victories by mobilizing outrage, not through position papers. Conservative candidates in the race have turned to the right because of pressure from the base.
The trouble with Trump though is that he has no positions, only reactions. Beyond the outrage, his actual plans grow vague or backtrack. Obama loves calling his think tank leftist plans "common sense". Trump's plans actually are common sense, but they're a common sense produced by some combination of FOX News, unknown websites and chats with some of his friends.
And they're liable to change depending on whom he talks to and what he reads and watches.
What are Trump's plans for health care? The details are vague. But they're going to be whatever he thinks is a common sense solution. And the same thing is true all the way down the line.
But at the same time dismissing Trump's political skills is foolish and wrong. Trump has managed to do what no Republican in fifteen years had accomplished.
There's a simple fact that is key to understanding why Trump is winning. He's the first Republican presidential candidate since Bush II to lay out a positive, specific and easy to understand plan for making things better. Cruz has plan for eliminating everything Obama did. Rubio has a vague plan for being really positive about America. Jeb Bush can barely articulate a message at all.
Bush II's compassionate conservatism was a mess. But the point isn't who is right. The point is what works. Ever since Obama's victory, I have argued that Republicans desperately need a positive agenda that connects with working class Americans who are worried about the economy.
Whether or not Trump's plan would work in real life is also not the point. The messaging is.
Trump is labeled as a destructive candidate, yet he's the only one to have grasped the most basic principle of politics, which is that you have to tell people how you will improve their lives in a way that is easy for them to understand and remember. Trump has done that. His rivals haven't.
Republican dysfunction and left-wing extremism made Trump's candidacy happen. And that's usually how Republicans get ahead in New York. Trump is doing nationally what successful Republican candidates do locally, bypass a broken New York party organization and make their own campaign happen. Giuliani did it. So did Bloomberg, despite having zero conservative credentials.
In New York, the GOP is not going to make your campaign happen. You have to make your campaign happen, often by fighting an apathetic and rotten GOP establishment, while doing everything on your own. Trump is just running the same type of campaign nationally.
Overall, Trump becomes much easier to understand if you understand New York.
Tough talking socially liberal, fiscally conservative, sorta Republican candidates who operate outside the party bubble and push the rhetoric as hard as they can through the other side are the norm here.
The average Republican voter is not a policy expert. Like Trump, he's often learning about some of these things for the first time. Trump is excellent at capturing that bar/barbershop angry reaction and it may even be completely authentic. His responses are much more relatable than that of the politician or the expert who already understands the issue. But reacting isn't leadership. Leaders are supposed to understand the issue. And when you can't know everything, you need to work from firm principles.
Here some conservatives object that Trump channels a conservative outrage machine, rather than conservative principles. And they're probably right. He isn't the only candidate in the race doing that. Conservatives won their victories by mobilizing outrage, not through position papers. Conservative candidates in the race have turned to the right because of pressure from the base.
The trouble with Trump though is that he has no positions, only reactions. Beyond the outrage, his actual plans grow vague or backtrack. Obama loves calling his think tank leftist plans "common sense". Trump's plans actually are common sense, but they're a common sense produced by some combination of FOX News, unknown websites and chats with some of his friends.
And they're liable to change depending on whom he talks to and what he reads and watches.
What are Trump's plans for health care? The details are vague. But they're going to be whatever he thinks is a common sense solution. And the same thing is true all the way down the line.
But at the same time dismissing Trump's political skills is foolish and wrong. Trump has managed to do what no Republican in fifteen years had accomplished.
There's a simple fact that is key to understanding why Trump is winning. He's the first Republican presidential candidate since Bush II to lay out a positive, specific and easy to understand plan for making things better. Cruz has plan for eliminating everything Obama did. Rubio has a vague plan for being really positive about America. Jeb Bush can barely articulate a message at all.
Bush II's compassionate conservatism was a mess. But the point isn't who is right. The point is what works. Ever since Obama's victory, I have argued that Republicans desperately need a positive agenda that connects with working class Americans who are worried about the economy.
Whether or not Trump's plan would work in real life is also not the point. The messaging is.
Trump is labeled as a destructive candidate, yet he's the only one to have grasped the most basic principle of politics, which is that you have to tell people how you will improve their lives in a way that is easy for them to understand and remember. Trump has done that. His rivals haven't.
Republican dysfunction and left-wing extremism made Trump's candidacy happen. And that's usually how Republicans get ahead in New York. Trump is doing nationally what successful Republican candidates do locally, bypass a broken New York party organization and make their own campaign happen. Giuliani did it. So did Bloomberg, despite having zero conservative credentials.
In New York, the GOP is not going to make your campaign happen. You have to make your campaign happen, often by fighting an apathetic and rotten GOP establishment, while doing everything on your own. Trump is just running the same type of campaign nationally.
Overall, Trump becomes much easier to understand if you understand New York.
Tough talking socially liberal, fiscally conservative, sorta Republican candidates who operate outside the party bubble and push the rhetoric as hard as they can through the other side are the norm here.
New York values recently became a controversy. Even though New Yorkers don't like Trump (his
negative approval rating is in the seventies), he's a perfect representative of a particular type that is independent, drifting between parties, that believes in strong leadership, abroad and at home, that wants more social services, but lower taxes, a strong military, but without the nation building, that has no strong religious attachments, but a certain sense of public decency, that sounds working class while running a successful business, and that gets his view of the world from the New York Post and the Daily News morning paper reads. There are contradictions and hypocrisies in that mix, but also a set of values, if not ideas. It's a Democratic-Republican mix that may sometimes vote for Democrats, but that watches FOX News, because it's the closest thing to a fit for its worldview.
The rise of Trump is not that baffling if you understand that dysfunction, national, movement and party, has consequences. And in this case, the consequence is that the 2016 election is being dominated by New York candidates and worldviews. New York Values are a difficult thing to describe and boil down. But it does seem as if New York Values will determine this election.
The D.C. establishment has been widely rejected in both parties. Disgust and hatred for the establishment has tainted the capital. Political power centers around cities. We may well be looking at a national election defined by three insurgent New York candidates, Trump, Sanders and Bloomberg.
New York has the money. It's also a melting pot of ideas. Trump, Sanders and Bloomberg encompass the range of politics in the city, from the radical Socialist left to a man-on-the-street Republican reaction to the technocratic man of the middle ground who promises to split the difference. None of this has worked out too well for New York. Only time will tell how well it will work out for America.
Stuart-Sinclair Weeks
Founder
Center for American Studies
Concord, MA 01742
stuartbweeks@gmail.com
www.concordium.us
negative approval rating is in the seventies), he's a perfect representative of a particular type that is independent, drifting between parties, that believes in strong leadership, abroad and at home, that wants more social services, but lower taxes, a strong military, but without the nation building, that has no strong religious attachments, but a certain sense of public decency, that sounds working class while running a successful business, and that gets his view of the world from the New York Post and the Daily News morning paper reads. There are contradictions and hypocrisies in that mix, but also a set of values, if not ideas. It's a Democratic-Republican mix that may sometimes vote for Democrats, but that watches FOX News, because it's the closest thing to a fit for its worldview.
The rise of Trump is not that baffling if you understand that dysfunction, national, movement and party, has consequences. And in this case, the consequence is that the 2016 election is being dominated by New York candidates and worldviews. New York Values are a difficult thing to describe and boil down. But it does seem as if New York Values will determine this election.
The D.C. establishment has been widely rejected in both parties. Disgust and hatred for the establishment has tainted the capital. Political power centers around cities. We may well be looking at a national election defined by three insurgent New York candidates, Trump, Sanders and Bloomberg.
New York has the money. It's also a melting pot of ideas. Trump, Sanders and Bloomberg encompass the range of politics in the city, from the radical Socialist left to a man-on-the-street Republican reaction to the technocratic man of the middle ground who promises to split the difference. None of this has worked out too well for New York. Only time will tell how well it will work out for America.
In his Second Inaugural Address, Lincoln wrote: “That this nation, under God, shall have a new birth of freedom and that government of the people, by the people, for the people shall not perish from the earth.” For a reason. Lincoln envisioned the situation that our nation finds itself in today: The birth pains have become considerable. Our “American Dream” has become a nightmare for a large and growing percentage of our population.
If such matters may, indeed, concern you, I welcome your best thoughts — nays no less than yeas — with respect to the emerging Citizens Movement, We the People, introduced in the attached. Committed to the revival of the spirit of Public Service, the movement draws on the vision behind old Ben (Franklin’s) “Great and Extensive Project”: The United Party of Virtue.
Thereto, and on a more personal level, this labor arises out of soon the last 10 generations in my family, who have served in state or national office. "To whom much is given, much is expected.”
My best wishes.
Stuart Sinclair Weeks
Stuart-Sinclair Weeks
Founder
Center for American Studies
Concord, MA 01742
stuartbweeks@gmail.com
www.concordium.us
=======================================================================================
3)How to hit your wife according to Islam,
explained by the PA Mufti of Gaza Hassan Al-Laham
"Not hitting that will bring the police,
and break her hand and cause bleeding,
or hitting that makes the face ugly"
n
Itamar Marcus and Nan Jacques Zilberdik
During a weekly Palestinian Authority TV program on social issues, the Mufti of Gaza Hassan Al-Laham discussed divorce in Islam. He explained that Allah directed men to take four steps to resolve conflicts with one's wife before resorting to divorce:
"Allah said: Warn them [the wives], and separate from them, and hit them, and bring an arbitrator from his family and an arbitrator from her family."
[Official PA TV, Feb. 8, 2016]
His essential message is that while "she became your wife, and she is under your command," nonetheless, hitting is to be used only after warning her and separating from her "in the bedroom" has failed to achieve the desired result. And then, when hitting is being used at the proper time, it should not be a severe beating:
"Not hitting that will bring the police, and break her hand and cause bleeding, or hitting that makes the face ugly."
Indeed, the hitting should "be like a joke," even reinforcing "the love and friendship" between the couple:
"This hitting is a kind of reminder that the love and friendship that Allah commanded, is still found between us (i.e., the couple)."
Other broadcasts on PA TV relating to women's rights and position in Palestinian society documented by Palestinian Media Watch:
"This woman may not and has no rights to deny him this right [to sex]... a woman must [only] leave home at the discretion of her husband... The woman should obey her husband and please him."
[PA TV, Aug. 2 and 12, 2012]
"The beating is not a severe beating, and as the experts in Islamic law said: 'Hit her with a handkerchief.'"
[PA TV, March 14, 2007]
PA TV has run a public service announcement to promote equal opportunity for women.
PA TV has also broadcast a satire ridiculing the inequality of women in PA society.
The following is a longer excerpt of the PA Mufti of Gaza describing the rules for hitting one's wife:
Mufti of Gaza Hassan Al-Laham: "Allah created a solution for this (i.e., marital strife). How? Allah said: Warn them [the wives], and separate from them, and hit them, and bring an arbitrator from his family and an arbitrator from her family. [Only] after this comes divorce. The husband starts with a warning."
PA TV host: "Explain to our viewers the steps a husband should take."
Mufti: "The warning needs to be made politely by the husband to his wife, while he shows good relations, dialogue, respect and humanity. She who stands before you is a human being. She is an independent person and deserves respect. You did not buy her as a slave, nor did you buy her in the market. She is a respectable woman from a respectable family, just as you are a respectable man from a respectable family. It may be that she is from a more socially respectable family than yours, however she became your wife, and she is under your command, and is under your care, so that you should treat her according to Allah's command. The warning should be made using a good word, good treatment and a positive look."
TV host: "In order to stop the conflict from getting worse and resolve it."
Mufti: "It is a warning. When she makes a mistake he will explain: 'You shouldn't do this and that.'"
TV host: "What is the stage after the warning, honored Sheikh?"
Mufti: "'[Quran:] Warn them [the wives] and separate from them.' The separation means separation in the bedroom, in the home. Not outside. In other words, he will not show other people that there is a problem. But inside the home, at bedtime, if he separates from her and does not speak to her in the bedroom, she will ask why, and he will explain: 'You made a mistake and I am angry about it.' Perhaps this will lead to reconciliation... After the warning and separation, comes the hitting - hitting that does not make her ugly. The Prophet [Muhammad] said [in a Hadith]: 'Do not hit the face and do not make her ugly.' In other words, not hitting that will bring the police, and break her hand and cause bleeding, or hitting that makes the face ugly. No. As it is said [in a Hadith] 'If not for this (i.e., the fear of retaliation), I would give you painful blows with a small brush.' ... The hitting is not meant to disfigure, harm, or degrade. The hitting will be like a joke. He will hit her jokingly. Not a blow that breaks a bone or makes the face ugly, and he will not curse and the like. This hitting is a kind of reminder that the love and friendship that Allah commanded, is still found between us (i.e., the couple)."
[Official PA TV, Feb. 8, 2016
No comments:
Post a Comment