For A Variety Of Reasons "David" Trump Can Win If Nominated!

Donald Trump and his theatrics!                             Trump won!
===
I have consistently said Trump is not my candidate. However, I have also said I would not rule out his becoming president should he get the nomination.

I believe far too many analysts have allowed their distaste of Trump to cloud their vision.

First, the best thing going for Trump and The Republican Party is The FBI investigation of Hillarious.
(See 1 and 1a below.)

Second, the Demwits have offered America two candidates who are anything but what America needs so they are beatable. They are turkeys and voting occurs before Thanksgiving.

Third, American voters are angry, dispirited and have lost their confidence in both parties and therefore, anything goes, anything can happen and this gives Trump an edge.  It does not mean a guarantee just an acceptable opportunity because when voters are in a sour mood and discouraged they are prone to validate my mantra, ie" When all else fails lower your standards."

Americans believe, as they have every right to, our nation has lost its way.  We are adrift. We are void of pragmatic, uplifting leadership. Therefore, voters just might be willing to buy a pig in a poke. After all they elected Obama twice. After 8 years of Obama there is no guarantee voters have learned anything.

I understand the intellectual argument that lists all the reasons why Trump is unqualified to be president.  I made the same argument regarding Obama. Where did it get me? I believe Obama's performance proved me right but when his term is over Obama will have been president and a re-elected one at that. So much for the intellectual argument when emotion is involved because emotion frequently carries the day and could again.(See 1b below.)

Korea, Viet Nam and Obama have laid the ground work for losing becoming acceptable.  Our out of control spending has weakened us to the point we no longer have the wherewithal to be the power house nation we once were. Finally, we no longer are unified in our purpose and when leadership is lacking it becomes easy for a people to lose their will.

Consequently, someone who says he will make us great again has sound appeal.  Someone who says what we intuitively feel is not likely to be questioned or subjected to a high degree of scrutiny. Someone with no ties to what we are ready to reject ie. party loyalty, monied interests and paid lobbyists, can finesse his way through the political haze.

Fourth, As noted above, Trump got Ford to cancel their plan to build a plant in Mexico.  How?  By challenging them and using the bully pulpit the way Truman did when he was president.

Fifth, what will be the campaign impact if Obama leaves the next president with a return of troops to Iraq because he pulled them out needlessly. (See 1c below.)

Americans are always willing to vote for a "David!"

I also have no doubt the remaining numbers and states yet to vote do not necessarily favor Trump and that the desire to deprive Trump of the nomination will mount so he may not get the nomination.

Stay tuned. (See 2 below.)
===
Presidents have the authority and Constitutional obligation to protect our nation and therefore can suspend immigration when it is a potential threat.  Obama knows this but he places wedge issues and politics over his legal obligation. (See 3 below.)
===
Gaza ready to explode? (See 4 below.)
===
My market guru friend may prove correct and I will be wrong.  Market does not seem to want to correct at this time. The Chairwoman of the Fed helped with her benign comments regarding raising rates.  (See 5 below.)
===
Last but not least! Allen West and his logic and common sense. (See 6 below.)
===
Dick
========================================================================
1)

What Are 147 FBI Agents Doing?

By JONATHAN S. TOBIN 

Does it really take 147 FBI agents to find out whether Hillary Clinton and her aides broke the law? The scoop from the Los Angeles Times about the investigation into the former secretary of state’s use of a home brew server 

on which she sent and received emails with classified information didn’t 

give us a timeline as to when this affair will be resolved. But the glacial 

pace of the probe is apparently picking up.

All those involved have now been told they will be formally interviewed by 

the FBI. Some experts quoted in the piece say this means the government’s examination of Clinton’s conduct is drawing to a close though given the time needed to conduct the interviews and the fact that supposedly none had yet been scheduled, probably means it won’t be concluded until the summer. 

But, as theWashington Post’s Chris Cillizza noted, the fact that 147 FBI 

agents have been rummaging around in the case undermines the Clinton campaign’s claim that the whole affair is something manufactured by the 

vast right-wing conspiracy that is out to get her. But what ought to be of 

genuine concern to both the Clinton camp and those who don’t want to see 

the Democratic frontrunner’s presidential hopes derailed by this case is the 

dual narrative that the latest stories are promoting.

On the one hand, we are being told that the government is deploying a great deal of resources to look for potential wrongdoing. We are also informed 

that the government has given immunity to the person that set up Clinton’s server. We’ve also been told that there’s no doubt that the insecure Clinton server was used to inappropriately send and receive classified information — some of which is so secret that it cannot be discussed publicly — and that 

this is a crime regardless of intent. Nor does such information need to be stamped with a label that says “top secret” like something in an old spy 

movie. Clinton and her staff would all have known if such information was classified and, therefore, had no business being transmitted on a private 

system rather than a secure government email and server. All of that would seem to point to serious legal difficulties for Clinton and her aides.

On the other hand, all of these stories keep telling us that it is unlikely that Clinton is in any legal jeopardy. How is that possible given the draconian 

attitude toward infractions of security law demonstrated in the prosecution of General David Petraeus?

The answer is that we’re supposed to think that what Petraeus did was much worse because he gave information to his biographer and mistress, who did not have clearance to read the material. Yet we also know that what Clinton did exposed secret information on the Internet and to the possibility of being 

hacked by foreign governments and terrorists. You don’t have to be a Justice Department lawyer to know that sounds pretty bad, too.

What does this all mean?

Taken out of a political context, I don’t think there’s much doubt that anyone

who did something as reckless and blatantly illegal as Clinton would have 

been charged in the case. That’s especially true given the way the Obama administration has strictly enforced national security laws. Nor does it make sense that Clinton’s IT person would have been given immunity to testify if 

the government didn’t believe that laws were broken by somebody.

Yet every story about Clinton with anonymous government sources as well 

as a bevy of legal experts willing to supply quotes keeps telling us that she probably isn’t in trouble. How can that be?The answer is to be found in 

politics, not law. We can praise the professionalism of the FBI and the 

apolitical nature of its director James Comey. But there is no way that the Obama administration Department of Justice is going to indict the person 

who is still almost certain to be the Democratic Party’s presidential candidate.

The dynamic in investigations where this much federal firepower has been 

used is that if 147 FBI agents are digging into someone’s life, they usually 

find something that can be construed as a violation of the law. In this case, 

the violation is obvious. While the laws involving security as applied to the 

age of the Internet is still evolving, the principles are the same. Despite the assurances that what Petraeus did was worse, handing over physical 

material to one person who was not authorized to see it but who was not a

spy or security risk — as he did — cannot possibly be as dangerous as 

exposing a vast store of information reaching the secretary of state to 

hackers via the Internet on an insecure server.

Nevertheless, Federal prosecutors have wide discretion as to whether or 

not to indict someone for a crime. And if there is a way for the government 

to avoid taking out Clinton, you can bet that they will take it. Far from the information about the Clinton investigation indicating the seriousness of the government’s purpose, the opposite may be true. As much as the FBI 

agents working on the case may be doing their best, it won’t be up to them 

to bring a case that their political overlords want to bury. It’s likely that 147 

FBI agents have dug up enough material for an indictment of somebody in 

the Clinton camp if not the former secretary of state. But the way this case 

has been slow-walked, it’s more likely that the leaks portend a government decision to buy the affair sometime this summer either just before or just 

after Clinton becomes the presidential nominee. Any other result seems unthinkable from an administration that is determined to ensure a third consecutive term for the Democrats.

1a) Biden-Clinton Friction Hangs Over Campaign

Democrats say Vice President Joe Biden could help Hillary Clinton’s candidacy—as long as 

the two can smooth their complicated relationship

Vice President Joe Biden could be an asset to the Hillary Clinton campaign, provided they can work through their complicated relationship. WSJ 

Washington bureau chief Jerry Seib discusses with Lee Hawkins.

Democrats worried about Hillary Clinton’s electoral weaknesses see Vice President Joe Biden as a potential solution—as long as the two former 

cabinet colleagues and sometime rivals can smooth their complicated relationship.

Mrs. Clinton’s vulnerabilities were apparent over the weekend when she 

suffered lopsided losses to rival Sen. Bernie Sanders in Democratic 

caucuses in Washington, Hawaii and Alaska. The trio of states contain 

either many white voters or veer to the left wing of the Democratic Party, two constituencies where Mrs. Clinton has struggled.

Mr. Biden, who often talks about his upbringing in Scranton, Pa., in a family 

that endured financial hardships, has shown an affinity with working-class 

whites that could help overcome doubts about Mrs. Clinton’s candidacy. He appears willing to hit the trail for the potential Democratic ticket.

Looming over the possible collaboration, however, are tensions between 

two of the nation’s most important Democrats: a sitting vice president and a former secretary of state who might wind up with the job he has long 

coveted.

In one notable instance, Mr. Biden said in a January television interview 

that Mrs. Clinton was “relatively new” to the issue of income inequality and 

that no one doubted Mr. Sanders’s “authenticity” on that issue.

Within minutes, according to people on both sides familiar with the matter, 

an aide to Mr. Biden got a phone call from Clinton campaign senior adviser Jennifer Palmieri insisting he was “wrong” in his characterization. She 

asked if he had more interviews scheduled and what else he planned to 

say. The next day, Mr. Biden went on TV and softened his comments.

Cooperating with Team Clinton would require Mr. Biden set aside bruised feelings stemming from his own presidential flirtations. He chose to sit out 

the race, though he says he has recurring regrets about being on the 

sidelines.

What is clear is that Mrs. Clinton needs someone to help win over white 

men. She lost this group to Mr. Sanders by 25 percentage points in 

Michigan, by 15 points in Ohio and 22 points in North Carolina, exit polls 

show.

Should she find herself in a general election showdown with Republican 

Donald Trump, she faces stiff competition for that demographic. In his 

primary victory in Michigan, for example, Mr. Trump won 45% of male 

voters, more than Ohio Gov. John Kasich and Texas Sen. Ted Cruz 

combined.

Earlier this month, Mrs. Clinton played into perceptions among working

 class white men that she is tone deaf to their struggles when she said at a televised town hall event that under her presidency, coal miners would find themselves “out of business.”

Sen. Joe Manchin, a West Virginia Democrat who has endorsed Mrs. Clinton, said the remark could jeopardize her chances to win his state. He phoned 

Mrs. Clinton to complain and asked if she was simply writing off West 

Virginia, a state no Democrat has won since her husband did in 1996. She quickly sent a letter apologizing and saying she had been “mistaken.”

“If anybody can help smooth it over it could be Joe,” Mr. Manchin said in an interview.

An aide to Mr. Biden said, “He will be heavily involved in helping the 

Democratic nominee and stands willing to assist in states where he’s 

helpful.”

Over the past quarter of a century Mr. Biden and Mrs. Clinton have been 

peers, colleagues and rivals. Their relationship has been cordial, but they 

aren’t especially close, people who know them both say. In private 

conversations with friends and political figures, Mr. Biden has voiced 

concerns about what he sees as the Clintons trying to capitalize on their 

public service, by giving paid speeches, for example.

Mrs. Clinton has said repeatedly she isn’t compromised by virtue of taking speaking fees from interest groups. “Anybody who thinks they can buy me doesn’t know me,” she told the Des Moines Register early this year.

Mr. Biden and Mrs. Clinton served together in the Senate and then faced 

each other in the 2008 Democratic presidential primary. One person close to Mrs. Clinton’s previous campaign said she came to respect Mr. Biden’s 

debating skills but didn’t see him as a threat. Mr. Biden dropped out of the 

race after a poor showing in the Iowa caucuses.

After President Barack Obama took office, Mrs. Clinton was named 

secretary of state. As vice president Mr. Biden also had pieces of the foreign-policy portfolio.

She tended to be more hawkish and inclined to use force, while Mr. Biden 

was more skeptical of military intervention, those who worked with them say.

“In general, the vice president was more wary about the use of the military 

and more cautious in that sense,” said Leon Panetta, a former defense 

secretary in the Obama administration. “And [Mrs. Clinton] was more willing

 to take a stronger stance.”

Mr. Biden wasn’t happy about Mrs. Clinton’s push for an American air 

campaign in Libya in 2011, undertaken with Western allies, which led to the death of Libyan leader Moammar Gadhafi. He worried about a power 

vacuum in the wake of Gadhafi’s fall, a former adviser said. Libya now has become fractured and destabilized, and Islamic State has spread inside the country.

In an interview on MSNBC earlier this month, Mrs. Clinton said it isn’t easy 

for nations to make the transition from dictatorship to democracy. As for 

taking military actions in Libya, she said the U.S. couldn’t simply turn its 

back on Arab allies that had asked for help in combating Gadhafi.

A sticky moment in dealings between Mr. Biden and Mrs. Clinton came last 

year, when he weighed a possible presidential bid. As Mr. Biden spent 

months deliberating, Mrs. Clinton said she was willing to give him space and time.

Yet Mr. Biden was angered by what he believed to be quiet efforts by her 

allies to try to dissuade him from running, blaming them for news reports highlighting past positions that might hurt him. In particular, he believed 

Clinton allies suggested he was cool to the raid that killed Osama bin Laden, people close to him say.

Mr. Biden is poised to be a high-profile surrogate if Mrs. Clinton captures the nomination. Friends hope if she wins the presidency she will tap Mr. Biden 

for special projects, perhaps as an informal roving ambassador.

Mrs. Clinton has hinted she has something in mind for Mr. Biden, saying, 

“History isn’t finished with Joe Biden” after he announced he wouldn’t run.

One friend, Delaware Sen. Tom Carper, said he has told Mr. Biden, “You’ll 

need to do everything you can to get her elected, and if she wins she will 

want you to be ambassador to the world.”

Write to Peter Nicholas at peter.nicholas@wsj.com and Carol E. Lee atcarol.lee@wsj.com

1b)

I MISS MY COUNTRY!

I BELIEVE THIS GUY HAS IT ALL COVERED.  I COULDN'T SPOT ANYTHING HE LEFT OUT AND I'D LOVE TO SHAKE HIS HAND.

I am the Democratic, Republican Liberal-Progressive's Worst Nightmare. I am a White, Conservative, Tax-Paying, American Veteran, Gun Owning, Biker. That's me!

I am a Master Mason. I work hard and long hours with my hands to earn a living.

I believe in  the freedom of religion, but I don't push it on others.

I ride Harley Davidson Motorcycles  .

I believe in American products and buy them whenever I can.

I believe the money I make belongs to me and not some liberal governmental functionary, Democrat or Republican, that wants to share it with others who don't work!

I'm in touch with my feelings and I like it that way!

I believe owning a gun doesn't make you a killer; it makes you a smart American.

I believe being a minority does not make you noble or victimized, and does not entitle you to anything.  Get over it!

I believe that if you are selling me a Big Mac or any other item, you should do it in English.

I believe there should be no other language option.

I believe everyone has a right to pray to his or her God when and where they want to.

My heroes are Malcolm Forbes, Bill Gates, John Wayne, Babe Ruth, Roy Rogers, and Willie G. Davidson, who makes the awesome Harley Davidson Motorcycles.

I don't hate the rich. I don't pity the poor.

I know wrestling is fake and I don't waste my time watching or arguing about it.

I've never owned a slave, nor was I a slave. I haven't burned any witches or been persecuted by the Turks, and neither have you!

I believe if you don't like the way things are here, go back to where you came from and change your own country!  This is AMERICA ... We like it the way it is and more so the way it was ... so stop trying to change it to look like Russia or China, or some other socialist country!

If you were born here and don't like it... you are free to move to any Socialist country that will have you. I believe it is time to really clean house, starting with the White House, the seat of our biggest problems.

I want to know which church is it, exactly, where the Reverend Jesse Jackson preaches, where he gets his money, and why he is always part of the problem and not the solution?  Can I get an AMEN on that one?

I also think the cops have the right to pull you over if you're breaking the law, regardless of what color you are, but not just because you happen to ride a bike.

And, no, I don't mind having my face shown on my driver's license. I think it's good....

I believe if you are too stupid to know how a ballot works, I don't want you deciding who should be running the most powerful nation in the world for the next four years.

I dislike those people standing in the intersections trying to sell me stuff or trying to guilt me into making 'donations' to their cause....Get a job and do your part to support yourself and your family!

I believe that it doesn't take a village to raise a child, it takes a man and woman ...

I believe 'illegal' is illegal no matter what the lawyers think!

I believe the American flag should be the only one allowed in AMERICA ! If this makes me a BAD American, then yes, I'm a BAD American.  If you are a BAD American too, please forward this to everyone you know...

We want to return our country to the values it was founded on, and prospered under for over 200 years!

MY Country...I hope this offends all illegal aliens.

My great, great, great, great grandfather watched and bled as his friends died in the Revolution and the War of 1812.

My great, great, great grandfather watched as his friends died in the Mexican American War.

My great, great grandfather watched as his friends and brothers died in the Civil War.

My great grandfather watched as his friends died in the Spanish-American War.

My grandfather watched as his friends died in WW I.

My father watched as his friends died in WW II and the Korean War.

I watched as my friends died in Vietnam , Panama and Desert Storm.

My son watched and bled as his friends died in Afghanistan and Iraq ..

None of them died for the Mexican Flag.

Every last one of them died for the American flag.

Texas high school students raised a Mexican flag on a school flag pole, other students took it down. Guess who was expelled... the students who took it down.

California high school students were sent home on Cinco de Mayo because they wore T-shirts with the American flag printed on them.

Enough is enough!

This message needs to be viewed by every American; and every American needs to stand up for America .

We've bent over to appease the America-haters long enough.

I'm taking a stand.

I'm standing up because of the hundreds of thousands who died fighting in wars for this country, and for the American flag.

If you agree, stand up with me.

And shame on anyone who tries to make this a racist message.

AMERICANS, stop giving away Your RIGHTS!  Let me make this clear! THIS IS MY COUNTRY!

This statement DOES NOT mean I'm against immigration!

YOU ARE WELCOME HERE, IN MY COUNTRY, and welcome to come legally, if you:

1. Get a sponsor

2. Learn the LANGUAGE, as immigrants have in the past!

3. Live by OUR rules!

4. Get a job!

5. Pay YOUR Taxes!

6. No Social Security until you have earned it AND Paid for it!

7. NOW find a place to lay your head!

If you don't want to forward this for fear of offending someone, then YOU'RE PART OF THE PROBLEM!

We've gone so far the other way . . . bent over backwards not to offend anyone.

Only AMERICANS seems to care when American Citizens are being offended!

WAKE UP America !!!

If you do not pass this on, may your fingers cramp!

I MISS MY COUNTRY!

1c) Citing 'Momentum Shift,' Pentagon Wants to Deploy More Troops to Iraq
By Ben Watson, Patrick Tucker

U.S. Marines with Task Force Spartan, 26th Marine Expeditionary Unit (MEU), on Fire Base Bell, Iraq, fire an M777A2 Howitzer at an ISIS infiltration route March 18, 2016. 
(Photo by Cpl. Andre Dakis)

ISIS is on their heels in Iraq and Syria, say U.S. military leaders who plan to ask the White House for more forces.

The momentum has shifted in the U.S.-led coalition fight against the Islamic State in Iraq and Syria, so it’s time to commit more forces for the looming battles ahead, the top U.S. civilian and military leaders told reporters Friday.

“We have a series of recommendations that we will be discussing with the president in the coming weeks to further enable our support for the Iraqi Security Forces, or ISF,” Chairman of the Joint Chiefs of Staff, Gen. Joe Dunford. “The secretary and I both believe that there will be an increase to the U.S. forces in Iraq in the coming weeks—but that decision hasn’t been made.”

“We’re broadening both the weight and the nature of our attacks on ISIL,” added Defense Secretary Ash Carter. “In both Syria and Iraq, we’re seeing important steps to shape what will become crucial battles in the months to come.”

Currently, the Pentagon says, there are 3,800 U.S. troops in Iraq for the coalition mission to destroy ISIS — although officials this week conceded that the figure doesn’t include “temporary” troops. The actual number tops 5,000, The Daily Beast’s Nancy Youssef reports.

The key near-term challenge remains the taking of Mosul, a city of 2 million and a key ISIS stronghold. U.S. officials say “several hundred” Marines are providing fire support to Iraqi security forces from Fire Base Bell, about 50 kilometers outside of Mosul. One Marine at the base was killed by an ISIS rocket on March 20; still, Dunford emphasized that base was behind the front lines.

“The primary force fighting in Mosul will be Iraqi security forces and we’ll be in a position to provide advise, assist and enabling capabilities to make them successful,” he told reporters.

Both Carter and Dunford said that momentum in Iraq and Syria has shifted from ISIS toward the ISF and coalition forces.

Carter cited recent gains in Syria, like the seizure of the town of Shadadi — “a key connection between Raqqa and Mosul,” he said — by Kurdish forces aided by U.S. special operators.

Dunford’s assessment: “I think there’s a lot of reasons for us to be optimistic about the next several months. But by no means would I say that we’re about to break the back of ISIL or that the fight is over.”

Lt. Gen. Vincent Stewart, the head of the Defense Intelligence Agency recently testified that clearing Mosul could take a year or longer.

ISIS Number 2 Believed Killed

Carter also said Friday that he believes the U.S. military killed the Islamic State’s second-in-command, a man by the name of Haji Imam.

“The U.S. military killed several key ISIL terrorists this week, including, we believe, Haji Imam, who was a senior leader serving as a finance minister and who also is responsible for some external affairs and plots.”

Considered to be the next-in-line to succeed ISIS leader Abu Bakr al-Baghdadi, Imam’s real name is Abd al-Rahman Mustafa al-Qaduli, according to Middle East analyst Charles Lister. He previously served as Abu Musab al-Zarqawi’s deputy and later al-Qaeda in Iraq’s emir of Mosul. The U.S. Treasury Department guessed his age to be close to 60 when it designated him a wanted terrorist nearly two years ago.

“We are systematically eliminating ISIL’s cabinet,” Carter said. He also announced a strike on another senior leader believed to have paid ISIS fighters in Iraq, Abu Sarah. But according to Micah Zenko of the Council on Foreign Relations, the Pentagon has claimed to have killed some 120 ISIS senior leaders of varying ranks, making it “hard to know [the] importance of any one additional leader.”

Carter refused to elaborate any further. “I’m going to ask you,” he said, “to respect the fact that we’re not going to go into any further details about how our coalition conducted the operations I mentioned earlier. Any more details than that could put lives and our future operations at risk, hinder the effectiveness of our campaign.”

However, anonymous U.S. defense officials told The Daily Beast the strike against Imam took place inside Syria. The U.S. and coalition jets have carried out 26 strikes in Syria over the past week, according to U.S. Central Command. That includes one near Palmyra, where Syrian troops backed by Russian forces, are advancing on the city ISIS has controlled since May.

Patrick Tucker is technology editor for Defense One. He’s also the author of The Naked Future: What Happens in a World That Anticipates Your Every Move? (Current, 2014). Previously, Tucker was deputy editor for The Futurist for nine years.

Ben Watson is news editor for Defense One. He previously worked for NPR's “All Things Considered” and “Here and Now” in Washington, D.C. Watson served for five years in the U.S. Army, where he was an award-winning combat cameraman and media advisor for southern Afghanistan's special operations.

================================================================2)Yes, Donald Could Beat Hillary

Conventional wisdom says he has no chance. But what if he blows up all the old rules?

By WILLIAM MCGURN

Leave it to Al Sharpton to come up with the most compelling analogy for Mr. Trump: another New York promoter.

“The best way I can describe Donald Trump to friends is to say if Don King had been born white he’d be Donald Trump,” Mr. Sharpton told Politico earlier this year.

Mr. King, of course, was the wild-haired boxing promoter who put on epic fights that included the 1975 “Thrilla in Manila”—the third and final time Joe Frazier andMuhammad Ali met in the ring. Like Mr. Trump, Mr. King was accused of links to organized crime, invoking the Fifth Amendment in a deposition to Senate investigators when asked. Like Mr. Trump too, Mr. King has been sued by a number of his former associates, including Mr. Ali.

Before Barack Obama, Mr. King even supported George W. Bush.

For years Mr. King dominated his industry by combining an outsize personality with a willingness to blow up the rules. It is a similar brashness and defiance of convention that make Mr. Trump such a wild card today, which also suggests why it’s probably premature to write him off for November—assuming he will be the Republican squaring off againstHillary Clinton.

Let’s run through the arguments:

• Mr. Trump has high negatives. Notwithstanding the manifest enthusiasm of Trump voters for their man, they often fail to appreciate that he may turn off more voters than he turns on. Real Clear Politics puts the average of his negatives at 63.2% That would help explain his failure thus far to break 50% in any Republican primary, and it justifies worries about how he’d fare among, say, Latinos and women come November.

But Mrs. Clinton has very high negatives too. Her own RCP average is 53.9%.

Whom would the voters regard as the lesser of two evils? A candidate who is dishonest and untrustworthy at a political moment when distrust of government is ascendant? Or a candidate who is crude and inexperienced at a time when the terrorists we face are organized and sophisticated.

David Plouffe, who managed Barack Obama’s successful 2008 campaign, has been warning Democrats not to take a Clinton victory for granted in the event Mr. Trump is the Republican nominee.

He has also consistently reminded Democrats that the coalition that sent Mr. Obama to the White House—including women, minorities and young voters—is not one Mrs. Clinton can take for granted. She needs to earn their support, he says. Right now theBernie Sanders wins are highlighting some of her soft spots, including with young women.

• Mrs. Clinton will use her knowledge and experience to make Mr. Trump look like an ignorant yahoo. Maybe. But again there are two caveats.

First, presidential matchups do not score like Oxford Union debates, and Mr. Trump plays his own game. For example, when Mrs. Clinton was readying the sexist meme against him, Mr. Trump took it away from her by bringing up the Bill Cosby-style allegations of rape and sexual misconduct against hubby Bill Clinton.

Who’s to say he won’t do the same in the debates? (“Did Goldman Sachs pay you to say that, Hillary?”) No one can know how Mr. Trump would debate Mrs. Clinton—or how voters would react.

Equally to the point, though pundits give great weight to candidate debates, plainly voters do not. In 2004 John Kerry demolished George W. Bush in the first debate, and the next two were generally given to him on points. But he still lost the election.

• Mrs. Clinton is a formidable candidate. The truth is, we don’t know how Mrs. Clinton would fare in a no-holds-barred debate with a tough challenger—because she’s not faced one in this primary. From the way the Democratic superdelegates have been awarded, to the number and timing of debates, the entire primary season has been orchestrated to serve Mrs. Clinton’s interests by a party that is mostly in her pocket.

This is why the last man standing is an angry, white-haired socialist. And yet the former first lady still can’t put him away. What does it say about large dissatisfactions within the Democratic Party that this cranky old guy continues to pull out victories?

In the long stretch between now and Election Day, many events could affect the outcome. More terror attacks à la Brussels or San Bernardino. More setbacks in Iraq or Syria. More belligerence from Vladimir Putin in Ukraine. And of course maybe even a Hillary indictment. Does anyone think any of this will help Mrs. Clinton?

Sure, it’s possible the GOP front-runner will implode, just as it’s possible all those polls showing Mrs. Clinton with a double-digit lead over Mr. Trump will indeed come to pass. But some of us who never thought he would get this far are a little more reluctant to be so categorical about an election that is still seven months away.

========================================================================
3)

Law of the land......Did you know this?

FOR THOSE OF YOU WHO THINK IT CAN'T BE DONE.

Here is number eight US Code 1182, inadmissible aliens. This law was

written in 1952.  It was passed by a Democrat-controlled Congress,

House and Senate, and signed by a Democrat president.

"Suspension of entry or imposition of restrictions by president.

Whenever the president finds that the entry of any aliens or of any

class of aliens into the United States would be detrimental to the

interests of the United States, the president may, by proclamation,

and for such period as he shall deem necessary, suspend the entry of

all aliens or any class of aliens as immigrants or non-immigrants or

impose on the entry of aliens any restrictions he may deem to be

appropriate."

All of the pundits that are claiming that what Trump said is dumb,

stupid, reckless, dangerous, and/or unconstitutional, need to educate

themselves.  It is already the law of the land.  And it was utilized

by Jimmy Carter, no less, in 1979 to keep Iranians out of the United

States, but he actually did more.  He made all Iranian students

already here check in, and then he deported a bunch.  Seven thousand

were found in violation of their visas, 15,000 Iranians were forced to

leave the United States, 1979.

You probably won't hear of this from our mainstream media,  ...............but those are the facts. 

======================================================================================
4)  The Gaza Time Bomb

by Yaakov Lappin

On the surface, the Gaza Strip looks relatively calm, with few security incidents occurring since the end of the protracted 2014 summer conflict between Hamas and Israel.

Behind the scenes, pressure within the Islamist-run enclave is gradually building again, just as it did prior to the 2014 war.

Gaza's civilian population is hostage to Hamas's dramatically failed economic policies, and its insistence on confrontation with Israel, rather than recognition of Israel and investment in Gaza's economic future.

Ultimately, the civilian-economic pressure cooker in Gaza looks likely to explode, leading Hamas to seek new hostilities with Israel, for which it is preparing in earnest.

Right now, Hamas remains deterred by Israel's firepower, and is enforcing its part of the truce. Hamas security forces patrol the Strip's borders to prevent Gazans from rioting, to stop them from trying to escape Gaza into Israel, and to stop ISIS-affiliated radicals who fire rockets at Israel.

Hamas is using the current quiet to replenish its rocket arsenal, dig its combat tunnel network, and build up sea-based attack capabilities. It is investing many resources in cooking up new ways to surprise Israel in any future clash. These efforts have not gone unnoticed by the Israel Defense Forces (IDF).

Hamas has not fired a single rocket into Israel since August 2014, but it encourages violence in the West Bank as part of a strategy to destabilize its Palestinian rival, the Fatah-led Palestinian Authority. Hamas in Gaza also works remotely to set up and orchestrate terrorism cells in the West Bank, while plotting way to overthrow Fatah from power. The Shin Bet, Israel's domestic intelligence agency, has successfully foiled nearly all of these efforts thus far, saving many Israeli lives, and the PA's rule, too.

A deeper look at processes under way in Gaza reveals why the status quo seems untenable in the long run. Thirty percent (910,000) of Gaza's population of 1.85 million are aged 15 to 29, and out of these, 65 percent are unemployed. This represents one of the highest unemployment rates for young people in the world. Many are university educated and deeply frustrated. The overall unemployment rate in Gaza is 38.4 percent, and rising steadily. Eighteen thousand Gazan university students graduate every year. Most of them have nothing to do with their degrees, and return home to a life of idle unemployment. Many Gazans dream of leaving. The suicide rate is growing. Under Hamas's rule, these young people see no change on the horizon.

Out of the total population of Gaza, 1.3 million receive assistance from United Nations aid workers, without which, a humanitarian crisis would likely ensue.

Those who dare complain, such as Gazan bloggers, find themselves whisked away into Hamas police custody, where they receive firm warnings to remain silent, or else.

Meanwhile, the Gazan population is growing at an unsustainable rate. Since Israel pulled out all of its soldiers and civilians in 2005, 600,000 Gazans have been born. This is a generation that has never been to Israel (unlike the older Gazans), and its only experience of Israel is through air force missiles fired at Hamas targets following clashes sparked by the jihadist regime's military wing.

Many of these young people are exposed to the propaganda of Hamas's media outlets, like the Al-Aksa television station, which is a major source of incitement. Some are also exposed to the wider world through the Internet, and are aware that life can be different for them.

By 2020, Gaza's population will hit 2.3 million people. It could run out of drinking water. This might prompt a civilian revolt, which could push Hamas into starting a new war with Israel to distract attention.

To try to relieve the pressure, Hamas leaders make promises that they cannot keep, such as the setting up of a sea port, and the opening of the Rafah crossing with Egypt, which the anti-Hamas Egyptian government opened just 18 times in 2015 for fear of allowing jihadists in Gaza to pour into the restive Sinai Strip.

A Hamas delegation traveled to Egypt earlier this month to try to mend relations with the Cairo government. The effort resulted in failure, after Egyptian officials accused Hamas of failing to acknowledge its collaboration with the ISIS-affiliated Sinai Province insurgents.

Changes are underway within Hamas itself, which are causing the Izzadin Al-Qassam Brigades military wing to gain power at the expense of the political wing, which is led by Ismael Haniyeh.

Yiyhe Sinwar is a senior Hamas member with growing power, operating in the gray zone between both wings. He is close to military wing chief Muhammed Def, and to Haniyeh. Sinwar's power represents the rise of military wing's influence, where many members are finding their way into political elite positions in Gaza.

Marwan Isa is another senior Hamas member, influential to both wings. While the political wing has, behind closed doors, been hesitant to support the military wing's disastrous adventures against Israel, its ability to veto future attacks may vanish.

Additionally, Hamas is running out allies as it did before the 2014 war.

Iran continues to fund its military wing, as well as Palestinian Islamic Jihad. Yet Tehran's ability to traffic weapons into Gaza has been ruined by Egypt's tunnel demolition drive.

Iran's overall influence on Gaza, therefore, is limited.

The Muslim Brotherhood-friendly Qatar has also stepped back from Hamas, limiting its funding projects in Gaza to civilian reconstruction only, building a modern highway in Gaza and a fancy new neighborhood in Khan Younis. However, no Qatari funds go to Hamas's military build-up. Turkey's assistance to Hamas is limited, too. It paid for a new Gaza hospital and 11 mosques, but beyond that, its support is mostly rhetorical.

The Arab world is indifferent to Gaza, meaning that Hamas is in strategic distress.

ISIS-inspired ideology is penetrating Gaza, and a few thousand former Hamas, Fatah, and Islamic Jihad members have defected to small Salafist-jihadist groups there. These groups have been responsible for all rocket fire into Israel since the summer of 2014.

In fact, the only state that makes major efforts to care for Gaza's civilians is Israel. Israel provides 60 percent of Gaza's electricity (30 percent is locally produced and Egypt provides the remaining 10 percent).

In 2015, Israel allowed 104,000 Gazans through the Erez border crossings to assist traders and humanitarian journeys. At the Kerem Shalom vehicle crossing, 900 trucks pass each day from Israel into Gaza, carrying all manner of goods, from fuel, to construction materials and commercial goods.

For Gaza civilians, the only ray of light seems to shine from the reconstruction mechanism, which Israel quietly set in motion after Hamas cynically used Gazan civilian areas as rocket launching zones and urban combat bases.

Israel set up a computerized reconstruction system that closely monitors and enables the rebuilding, while preventing the use of concrete and dual use items from falling into Hamas's hands. Gaza contractors who cannot account for their materials on the computerized systems are immediately removed from their positions, a heavy price to pay in the unemployment-rife Gaza Strip.

Funded by international donors and the Palestinian private sector, the mechanism, which Israel pushed to set up, has repaired 80,000 of the 130,000 housing units damaged during the conflict. Another 20,000 are currently being repaired.

Of the 18,000 homes completely destroyed in 2014, nearly 11,000 have already been rebuilt, and material for nearly 2,000 more homes has been bought and paid for.

The reconstruction program is providing jobs and a little hope for Gazans. But it is unlikely to be sufficient to stave off an economic collapse. Again, the rebuilding effort is funded almost entirely by outside sources while Hamas invests tremendous resources into terrorism-guerilla capabilities and denies the Gazan people the opportunity of economic development by refusing to recognize Israel.

Until Gaza is run by people with different priorities, its residents have little hope their lives will improve.

Yaakov Lappin is the Jerusalem Post's military and national security affairs correspondent, and author of The Virtual Caliphate (Potomac Books), which proposes that jihadis on the internet have established a virtual Islamist state.

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

5) Why Yellen Is So Dovish

Kevin Cook here minding the QE candy store for Reity... 

Just a few simple words from Fed Chair Janet Yellen flipped the "on" switch for risk-on assets Tuesday. She said "Global developments have increased the risks" to the outlook and "given the risks, I consider it appropriate for the FOMC to proceed cautiously."

While many outspoken hawks at the Fed feel that the US economy is ready now for more rate hikes -- before they fall behind the inflation curve -- Yellen and her doves remain terribly afraid of derailing the current expansion.

But why do the doves feel they are so backed into a corner by what's going on in Europe, Japan, and China/Emerging Markets? Shouldn't Fed policy be focused just on the US outlook? 

The "why" can be answered in two words 

Deflation quagmire. Global growth has slowed dramatically in the past year and it doesn’t look any more promising now. That's why the European Central Bank (ECB) and the Bank of Japan (BOJ) opted for negative interest rates this year.

Yellen won't go negative, but she views moving away from the ECB and BOJ as suicide because hiking rates will launch the US dollar and put further pressure on the domestic economy.

Bottom line: What Yellen definitely doesn't want right now is a stronger dollar that kills exports and makes it harder for US companies to compete in a world of falling prices. That's why she will remain steadfastly dovish this year and probably into 2017. Risk trades are full on again.

Best,

Kevin Cook

Senior Stock Strategist, Zacks Investment Research

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

6)Who Do We Value in America?

By Allen West

In this election cycle, the liberal progressive socialist left is going to the ideological bank to tout the important issue of income inequality. We will hear the incessant calls for a $15 minimum wage, which one has to ask, why not $25? What is so magic about the $15 number? This reflects just another easy issue talking point that can be repeated by the masses but never articulated or defended well in a debate forum.

However, it does beg the question: In these times of the current conflagration against the global Islamic jihad and other defined nation-state adversaries, who is it that we value?

I believe that there are two very important groups of people necessary for the existence of a society. The first are those who teach, and notice I said teach, not indoctrinate. There is a very distinct difference. The second group are the ones who defend -- the guardians who stand upon freedom’s rampart. And, when one considers the level of compensation for these two groups, well, it appears they are not exactly the ones who are valued.

I should know, having been both.

What concerns me greatly is the fact that here in America, we have our best -- those guardians -- having to sustain their quality of life on government food subsistence programs. Now, perhaps there are those of you who truly do not care about this issue -- hence the titled question of this missive. How is it that we have devolved to a point in our beloved America, where the SEIU purple-shirted protesting union members, supported by leftist organizations and funding, get more attention than the camouflage-wearing defenders of the republic?

Perhaps it is because the defenders are too busy doing just that. Well, I would like to take the time and lend my voice to their plight.

A Marketplace.org report from May 2015 stated that, “In 2014 more than $84 million worth of food stamps were spent at military commissaries.” And, understand that there is a movement on Capitol Hill to end the existence of the military family provision institution known as the Commissary. Why is that service important? It provides a place where young military spouses can have quick access to ensure they can feed their families. That is key when their loved ones are spending so much time on deployments or training, since we are so heavily degrading and decimating our military capability. As well, the article states, “The USDA estimates that in 2012, more than 1.5 million veterans used food stamps, about 7 percent of all veterans.” That just should not be the case.

The qualifications for the Supplemental Nutrition Assistance Program (SNAP), or food stamps, state that “a single person has to be grossing less than $15,180 per year and a family of four income threshold is $31,008.” Just so you can make the comparison, a young, junior member of the U.S. Armed Forces coming on active duty has a base pay right at or less than $19,000. Now, with BAH (Basic Allowance for Housing) and food allowances, that pay can go up to the high $30K mark. BAH is calculated based upon the zip code where a service member is stationed.

But consider the young troop with a larger-than-normal family. With a non-working spouse, it could be difficult. I remember when, during the Clinton administration, now-deceased Commandant of the U.S. Marine Corps, General Carl Mundy, suggested a policy of “no first term Marines with families” due to the high stress of deployments and low compensation. Gen. Mundy, whom I knew well, was publicly reprimanded and humiliated by then-Secretary of Defense Les Aspin. Considering the stress on a Marine Corps (that is now the smallest since World War I), perhaps General Mundy was onto something.

In July 2015, Amy Bushatz of Military.com’s “Spouse Buzz” wrote, “If he [service member] lives in a privatized on-base housing, all of their BAH disappears with no extra pocket padding left over. But the food stamp program known as SNAP, includes the fluctuating and disappearing BAH pay in the calculation whether or not the service member qualifies. That means even though the troop has the same trouble affording staples at Ft. Polk, Louisiana that they do in Washington D.C., they can only receive SNAP at Ft. Polk, where their BAH pay and cost of living is lower.”

One of the policy changes recommended to rectify this horrible situation for our young men and women serving is to change the law to eliminate BAH from the food stamp calculation. This is a policy proposal we here at the NCPA will look for in the final FY 2017 National Defense Authorization Act (NDAA). This is a serious issue that may not be great in numbers, but it is great in reflecting our value system. Feeding America recently reported that 25 percent of military households receive food aid every month.

Another policy solution presented in a February 2015 article in the Military Times is “to scrap the DoD’s Family Subsistence Supplemental Allowance (FSSA) program which is designed to keep lower-income military families off the government SNAP.” The article provides an example of the ineffectiveness of FSSA from a report submitted by the Military Compensation and Retirement Modernization Commission. “Take an E4 (enlisted service member) with two years of service, a spouse and four children living at Ft. Leonard Wood, Missouri. Under FSSA, that service member would receive an increase of $77.65/month. Under SNAP, the same E4 would get $178.58/month on their EBT (Electronic Benefits Transfer) card -- the account that is established for SNAP benefits recipients”. 

Ending the FSSA program would eliminate approximately $1 million a year from the Department of Defense budget, the commission reported. Now, that may not sound like much, but a million here and a million there would significantly help streamline the DoD budget.

The bottom line is this, do we value the fast food worker more than the one who answers the call to serve our nation? We, at the National Center for Policy Analysis, have developed the “Provide for the Common Defense, Now!” petition and we advocate for better compensation for our men and women in uniform, especially those junior members. If you stand with us, please sign it.

You know, it took me 22 years to qualify for my military retirement at 55 percent of my base pay. It only takes a Member of Congress five years to qualify for a retirement at a percentage of base pay far exceeding that.

Whose service do we value in America?

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