Sweden Gone, England On Its Way, Europe and America Next? Wilcher, Center and Muller! Objective, Fair and Balanced History?

                             Candidates!
===
If you want to protect your home and not have to run the gauntlet of what it takes to own a gun try this. (See 1 below)
==
During WW 2 there was an expression: "There will always be an England far across the sea as long as there's America to fill her treasury."

Perhaps we have reached the point where even that is no longer true. We cannot afford to do so and England is engulfed by and drowning in Muslims.

This is a fascinating clip of a British politician, speaking in the States at the Conservative Political Action Conference.  The points are so obvious. Is the outcome inevitable?

https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=a-hPCnel0qc

I forwarded this to my British girl friend before I sent in this memo and this was her confirming  response: "Amazing. I had not heard that speech, we are all so worried about the way Europe is heading and how weak our government is. I have recently discovered, I may have told you already, that I am related to Boris Johnson from London and we think he'd be better than Cameron. Incidentally have you heard about Mr Cameron hiding funds in Panama?"

While we are on the subject let's review a little history.

Bill Clinton was given the opportunity to have bin Laden handed over to him and turned the offer down.  

Bill Clinton told us his deal with N Korea would make the world safer.

Obama signaled to Putin that upon his re-election he would become a Putin Patsy!

Obama has basically given over the Middle East to Russia, Iran and ISIS. During Obama's tenure bin Laden was killed.

Obama has reduced our military both in numbers and in senior staffing by forcing the resignation of some of our best minds and proven leadership. Obama has turned our military, the department that is supposed to defend and protect our nation, into a social agency experiment.

Hillary Clinton participated in eliminating Qaddafi and the consequent destabilization and loss of Libya ensued. She also failed to respond and protect Americans in Benghazi but did embrace Obama's claim the attack was due to a video.

Hillary Clinton gave Putin a reset button which he took to mean he could invade The Crimea and Ukraine and we would do nothing.

Bernie Sanders and Obama want America to become like Europe which is being run over by Muslims (listen to video above.)

Like myself, you may find Trump and Cruz objectionable but at least they are willing to name our enemy - Islamist Radicalism - and are prepared to try and reverse the self defeating course Obama, Kerry and The Clinton's have placed us on while they were in charge.

Now for historical balance:

Reagan raised the stakes against Russia and helped to bring about its collapse. He either lied or was out of the loop, due to the onset of Alzheimer and his suicide attempt wounds, vis a vis Nicaragua.

Bush 41 assembled an effective coalition and defeated Sadaam who had invaded and occupied Kuwait. He did not finish the job because of his fear the coalition would collapse.

GW responded to 9/11 with an attack on Afghanistan and eliminated the Taliban, then he pursued Iraq and eliminated Sadaam and after doubling down left Iraq in a more subdued state. He did so on the basis of information that allegedly was not totally complete and there are those who believe he opened a can of worms which Obama inherited and made worse.

===

As I alerted you in a previous memo, Roy Harris has pulled out of the race thus, helping to boost John Wilcher in his run for the sheriff against a Democrat. Harris did the sensible and even honorable thing. Stay tuned and please consider voting for Wilcher.

Slowly but assuredly, the pieces are coming together that round out the new Savannah and Chatham County Administration's. The next move is for Tony Center to take the Chatham County Chairmanship from the incumbent and Peter Muller to take the Circuit Court judgeship from his incumbent opponent.

All of these elections will go a long way toward helping insure Savannah and Chatham County are on the right path to more enlightened, honest and effective management and our beautiful city can live up to its full and unique potential.

===

If Cruz wins Wisconsin, harder for Trump to get to the numbers he needs, the more likely an open convention and Kasich's chances are enhanced.(See 2 and 2a below.)

Hillary still favored by statistics even if she loses Wisconsin but she would be an increasingly weaker opponent.

===

Netanyahu clears his desk. Will Abbas take this is a sign of weakness and believe the terrorist attacks are working? Stay tuned. (See 3 below.)

===

I have said, all along, fighting BDS was playing into the hands of haters and fools.  Israel is no longer a nation dependent on products that are as vulnerable as they once were, ie food and flowers etc..  Their technology helps run the world, improves and sustains health and is critical, even vital. (See 4 below.)

===

Iran seen through Obama's myopic lens. (See 5 and 5a below.)
===

Dick
++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++
1)For anyone who would rather not have a gun in the house!

In view of the recent Supreme Court ruling, sales of this new product may skyrocket.

Washington thinks they are going to take away our guns, so check this out.

NAIL GUNS! AND, you don't even have to REGISTER them or have LICENSES for them!

AND, you don't have to worry about them being CONCEALED!

 Once in a while something so totally cool comes out that even a guy who doesn't normally even know what he'd like for Father's Day or Christmas might immediately ask for it:

Thank you, DeWalt!!!

New Nail Gun, made by DeWalt.  It can drive a 16-D nail through a 2x4 at 200 yards.

This makes construction a breeze, you can sit in your lawn chair and build a fence.

Hundred round magazine.

Someone invades your home, just nail them.

++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++
2) Dangerous Donald Trump
By Thomas Sowell


Donald Trump's victories in the Republican primaries may make him seem like a sure winner. But those victories have been achieved by receiving either somewhat less than 40 percent of the votes or somewhat more than 40 percent, but never a majority.

The fragmenting of the Republican vote among many candidates in the primaries made this possible. But victory in the general election for President of the United States in November is going to require a lot more than 40 percent of the votes. And polls consistently show Mr. Trump to be the most negatively regarded of any of the candidates in either party.

In some Republican winner-take-all states, 40 percent of the votes can be enough to get 100 percent of the delegates. This leverage might enable Trump to gain a majority of the delegates needed to become the party's nominee.

But Trump and his supporters want more. They are now talking as if winning a plurality of the delegates ought to be enough to gain him the nomination, despite his failing to get a majority, as required by long-standing rules.

There is a reason why the rules require a candidate for the nomination to receive a majority of the delegates. If you cannot even get a majority of the delegates in your own party, how can you expect to win the November election for President?

Delegates get their first opportunity to choose a candidate by voting according to the way their respective primary voters voted. But, if that process fails to produce a winner, then delegates can vote again, this time on the basis of their own best judgments, for as many rounds of voting as it may take before someone gets a majority.

None of this is new. Yet some Trump supporters are talking as if a failure to change the rules for the benefit of "the Donald" -- by letting a plurality, rather than a majority, choose the winner -- would mean that Trump had been cheated out of the nomination. But what of the voters who voted AGAINST Trump during the primaries? Despite the fog of political rhetoric, we should not lose sight of the fact that those who voted against Trump in the primaries were far more numerous than those who voted for him.

This might all be just an internal problem of the Republican Party, and of no concern for those of us who are not Republicans, except for one thing. This country is at a dangerous crossroads.

We got here by electing a president on the basis of glib words and boastful promises. We cannot afford to repeat that mistake.

In addition to internal polarizations, we are threatened by countries that openly declare their hatred of America, and are developing intercontinental missiles that can carry nuclear bombs. In addition, there are international terrorist organizations killing people in Europe and in the United States.

In order to deal with these threats, and especially secretive international terrorist organizations, we are going to need the cooperation of many other nations around the world. These nations, knowing that cooperating with the United States will make them targets for terrorists, must first have confidence in the words and deeds of whoever is President of the United States.

They cannot have that confidence in someone who is constantly spouting off with irresponsible rhetoric -- some of which has to be walked back by his apologists -- or someone whose snap judgments about complex and weighty issues betray a superficial knowledge, if not sheer ignorance.

If ever there was a time when we needed a serious, mature President of the United States, with a depth of knowledge and a foundation of personal character -- a grownup in the White House -- this is that time. But seldom a week goes by without Donald Trump demonstrating, yet again, that he is painfully lacking in all these prerequisites.

Instead of offering coherent plans for dealing with the nation's problems, Trump skips that and boasts of the great things he will achieve. Those who dare to question are answered with cheap putdowns, often at a gutter level.

A man in his 60s, who is still acting like a spoiled adolescent, is not going to grow up in the next four years. And, as President, he would have the lives of us all, and our loved ones, in his hands, as well as the fate of this great nation at a fateful time.

There are signs that some people are belatedly waking up to the dangers that Donald Trump represents. We can only hope that the voters in Wisconsin are among them -- and that voters in New York, California and elsewhere wake up before it is too late.

2a)Barron's: John Kasich Is Best Republican Pick for Economy, Markets

Ohio Governor John Kasich is the “Republicans’ best hope to win the presidency” in a face-off with Democratic frontrunner Hillary Clinton, according to a Barron’s front-page story this week.

“Unlike Clinton, Kasich has a sensible across-the-board tax-cutting agenda for corporations, individuals, and investors,” the magazine says. “And as a Republican president working with a presumably GOP-controlled Congress, he would be a more effective leader. After all, he spent six years as the chairman of the House Budget Committee, so he knows how to broker a deal.”

Kasich is also a long shot candidate, having won 143 of the 1,237 Republican delegates needed to win the nomination. Real estate developer Donald Trump has 736 while Texas Sen. Ted Cruz has 463. Last month, Barron’s said investors would be better off with Clinton than with Trump because of her record as a political moderate.

But Kasich has advantages over Clinton, according to Barron’s writer John Kimelman.
“He’s the only GOP candidate who beats Clinton in a head-to-head contest in the polls,” Barron’s says, citing data from the Real Clear Politics website.

Kasich beats Clinton 48 percent to 42 percent, while Trump loses with 39 percent to Clinton’s 50 percent. Clinton beats Cruz 46 percent to 44 percent, the data show.

“Kasich, who spent 18 years in the House, appears to be sincere about reforming entitlements and other government spending,” Barron’s says. “The bipartisan Committee for a Responsible Federal Budget has studied the numbers provided by each candidate and concluded that Kasich is the only one in the race who can lower total federal spending as a percentage of gross domestic product over the next decade.”

The magazine also likes Kasich's plan to reform income and corporate taxes, repatriate the estimated $2 trillion in profits held overseas and reorganize the Internal Revenue Service. 

Barron's doesn’t like Trump’s ideas on restricting global trade in an effort to protect U.S. workers from low-paid competition in countries like China and Mexico. Trump would add $10 trillion to the federal debt, according to a study cited by the magazine. The national debt has risen 70 percent to about $19 trillion under President Barack Obama.

Endorsing Kasich

Kasich has received endorsements from other newspapers including the New York Times, which in January said “as a veteran of partisan fights and bipartisan deals during nearly two decades in the House, he has been capable of compromise and believes in the ability of government to improve lives.”

The NYT also likes his plan for helping undocumented illegal immigrants obtain legalization, “and he speaks of government’s duty to protect the poor, the mentally ill and others ‘in the shadows.’”

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

3) Netanyahu: I’m inviting Abbas to meet, clearing my schedule

Israeli Prime Minister Benjamin Netanyahu repeated his invitation to Palestinian Authority (PA) President Mahmoud Abbas on Thursday for a meeting, after Abbas stated last week that he would be willing to meet. Before reporters, the prime minister declared, “I’ve cleared my schedule this week. Any day he can come, I’ll be here.” Abbas, however, has had a long history of refusing to meet with Israeli leaders. In 2009, he refused to meet with Netanyahu even after the Israeli prime minister implemented a 10-month settlement freeze. The Palestinian president has instead opted for unilateral attempts to gain statehood. In April 

Netanyahu also said that he and Abbas have many things to discuss “but the first item is ending the Palestinian campaign of incitement to murder Israelis.” Since the current wave of terror began in the fall of 2015, the Palestinian Authority, led by President Abbas, has refused to condemn the violence perpetrated against Israelis. Furthermore, the violence has been triggered by incitement from the Palestinian Authority, Abbas’s Fatah Party, and leaders across Palestinian society. The spate of terror has resulted in the deaths of 34 people and injured over 400. One of the victims was the American military veteran Taylor Force, who served two tours in Iraq and Afghanistan and died when he was stabbed in Jaffa by a Palestinian. In response, the PA’s official TV news station called the terrorist responsible for the stabbing attack a “martyr.” On Twitter, Abbas’s Fatah Party hailed him as a “martyr” and a “hero.” Palestinian leadership has propagated the false rumor that Israel seeks to undermine the status quo at the Temple Mount. Palestinian attackers have indicated they were inspired to act after hearing these lies. In November, a Palestinian attacker recorded a video before stabbing an Israeli, stating: “On behalf of myself and the Palestinian people, I, Bara'a Issa, a son of Jerusalem, set out to defend the al-Aksa mosque and our holy land." Abbas declared in September that Jews “have no right to desecrate” the Al Aqsa Mosque with their “filthy feet,” and that “each drop of blood that was spilled in Jerusalem is pure blood.”

While in Israel in early March, Vice President Joe Biden issued acondemnation of the Palestinian Authority for failing to denounce the terror. Two weeks later at AIPAC’s annual Policy Conference, Biden reiterated that in Israel, he condemned the attacks, adding “I condemned the failure to condemn those atrocious attacks of violence.”

++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++

4) Speaker of the US House decries 'ridiculous and counterproductive BDS shenanigan'

Ryan's comments came after he, and the senior bipartisan congressional delegation he is leading, met with PM Netanyahu.

By HERB KEINON, LAHAV HARKOV

Visiting U.S. Speaker of The House Paul Ryan (R-Wisconsin) said Monday he chose Israel as the destination of his first trip abroad in his powerful new role “to show how important our ties and our alliance with Israel is.” Ryan, in an interview from Jerusalem with the Hugh Hewitt radio show in the US, said: “In this dangerous, chaotic part of the world, with terrorism all over the world, Israel is one of our most important allies.”

Ryan’s comments came after he, and the senior bipartisan congressional delegation he is leading, met with Prime Minister Benjamin Netanyahu. Ryan has been speaker of the house for just over four months.

While in the past the Prime Minister’s Office often provided readouts of the premier’s meetings with US lawmakers, in recent months it has stopped doing so in what may be an attempt not to be seen as taking sides in the US election.

“I’m here to show our support. I’m here to talk with our allies and to see how we can better cooperate to win this war against radical Islamic terrorism,” Ryan said, pointedly using a phrase – radical Islamic terrorism – avoided by US President Barack Obama.

Ryan said the conversation with Netanyahu dealt with UN resolutions “and any problems they propose,” an obvious reference to the concern some in Jerusalem have that in the waning days of the Obama tenure the president may either not veto a French resolution on the Middle East in the UN Security Council, or present his own resolution setting the parameters for a future deal.

Ryan added that the Boycott, Divestment and Sanctions movement, as well as the rise of anti-Semitism in Europe, also were discussed in the meeting with Netanyahu.

“Europe has been engaging in this ridiculous and counterproductive BDS shenanigan,” he said. “We in the Congress have been very forceful about that. By the way, when you try to boycott, divest and sanction Israel, you’re hurting Palestinians, as well.”

In addition to meeting Netanyahu, Ryan and his delegation also visited the Knesset and met with Speaker Yuli Edelstein.

In the meeting with Edelstein, Ryan said the alliance between Israel and the US is “more important now than ever before” in light of “very difficult times, the rise of ISIS, terrorism, [the] Syrian civil war, Iran.

“We see you as our friends, our allies, our partners. You’re an island of freedom in a very difficult, chaotic region, and that is why our partnership is all the more important,” he added.

Ryan said it is important for Israel and the US to renew and extend its bilateral security agreement, mentioning missile-defense programs like David’s Sling and the Arrow.

Following his meeting with Netanyahu, Ryan and the delegation visited an Iron Dome battery.

Ryan reiterated to Edelstein that Congress would actively combat boycott efforts against Israel.

“That’s something we take pride in, advancing the kind of [anti-boycott] legislation we’ve already advanced this year in the House, and we pledge to stand shoulder to shoulder with you. That’s why we’re here,” Ryan stated.

Edelstein told Ryan that Israel knows “we have true friends in the US, in Congress and the White House.

“In our neighborhood, I think it’s not just a question of having another good friend, but also a question of Israel’s security,” he said, adding that continued American aid to Israel is “the guarantor of our existence” in the region.

The other members of the delegation include Mac Thornberry (R-Texas), chairman of the House Armed Services Committee; Devin Nunes (R-California), chairman of the House Permanent Select Committee on Intelligence; Mike Turner (R-Ohio), chairman of the House Subcommittee on Tactical Air and Land Forces; Gregory Meeks (D-New York); Ron Kind (D-Wisconsin); Kristi Noem (R-South Dakota); and Will Hurd (R-Texas).

+++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++

5) Obama increasingly isolated on Iran giveaways

By Jennifer Rubin 

According to President Obama, “Iran so far has followed the letter of the agreement, but the spirit of the agreement involves Iran also sending signals to the world community and businesses that it is not going to be engaging in a range of provocative actions that might scare business off.” He added, “When they launch ballistic missiles with slogans calling for the destruction of Israel, that makes businesses nervous.”

His comments are curious both because the “letter of the agreement” seems to be forever changing to incorporate Iran’s demands and because despite Iran’s actions, the president continues to make more concessions. As Eli Lake observes, “This pattern began over the summer when Obama himself assured Congress and the public that the International Atomic Energy Agency would have the ability to inspect any suspicious site it wanted. The Iranians countered that their military facilities were off limits. . . . When the IAEA devised a plan to inspect Iran’s Parchin facility, the Iranians refused inspectors access and allowed only a ceremonial visit from the agency’s director. The Iranians were allowed to collect their own site samples.” I suppose it is easy to abide by the letter of the agreement if one is allowed to erase inconvenient parts of the deal.

Congressional leaders from both parties are firing back over what they see is evidence that Congress was blatantly misled about the terms of the deal and the administration’s willingness to confront Iran’s non-nuclear behavior. Today, Rep. Mike Pompeo (R-Kan.) is quoted as saying, “When multiple officials—including Secretary Kerry, Secretary Lew, and Ambassador Mull—testify in front of Members of Congress, we are inclined to believe them. “However, the gap between their promises on the Iran nuclear deal and today’s scary reality continues to widen. We are now trying to determine whether this was intentional deception on the part of the administration or new levels of disturbing acquiescence to the Iranians.”

U.S. allies — and not just Israel — are nervous as well. Yousef Al Otaiba, ambassador of the United Arab Emirates to the United States, writes in the Wall Street Journal, “Since the nuclear deal … Iran has only doubled down on its posturing and provocations. In October, November and again in early March, Iran conducted ballistic-missile tests in violation of United Nations Security Council resolutions.” He goes on to document a long list of Iranian provocations:

In December, Iran fired rockets dangerously close to a U.S. aircraft carrier in the Strait of Hormuz, just weeks before it detained a group of American sailors. In February, Iranian Defense Minister Hossein Dehghan visited Moscow for talks to purchase more than $8 billion in Russian fighter jets, planes and helicopters. 

In Yemen, where peace talks now hold some real promise, Iran’s disruptive interference only grows worse. Last week, the French navy seized a large cache of weapons on its way from Iran to support the Houthis in their rebellion against the U.N.-backed legitimate Yemeni government. In late February, the Australian navy intercepted a ship off the coast of Oman with thousands of AK-47s and rocket-propelled grenades. And last month, a senior Iranian military official said Tehran was ready to send military “advisers” to assist the Houthis. . . . And in Syria, Iran continues to deploy Hezbollah militias and its own Iranian Revolutionary Guard to prop up Syria’s Bashar Assad.

It is remarkable that the United Arab Emirates ambassador seems more outraged about Iranian aggression against the United States than does the U.S. president. He is certainly more proactive: “At the Gulf Cooperation Council summit in Riyadh later this month, the U.S., the U.A.E., Saudi Arabia, Qatar, Kuwait, Bahrain and Oman should reach an agreement on a common mechanism to monitor, expose and curb Iran’s aggression. This should include specific measures to block its support for the Houthi rebels in Yemen, Hezbollah units in Syria and Lebanon, and Iranian-linked terrorist cells in Saudi Arabia and Bahrain.” He continues, “Recent half measures against Iran’s violations of the ballistic-missile ban are not enough. If the aggression continues, the U.S. and the global community should make clear that Iran will face the full range of sanctions and other steps still available under U.N. resolutions and in the nuclear deal itself.” One cannot help but think that the West would be far safer if he, not Secretary of State John Kerry, had been the lead negotiator.

The good news is that at least one presidential contender seems to grasp what is going on. Sen. Ted Cruz (R-Tex.) regularly denounces the Obama administration’s giveaways to Iran. He would do well to expound on his concerns and lay out a complete Iran policy.

While it is too much to hope that Donald Trump would understand most of this, or that Sen. Bernie Sanders (I-Vt.) would be any more stalwart than the administration, one would hope Hillary Clinton would voice agreement with Rep. Steny Hoyer (D-Md.), Sen. Robert Menendez (D-N.J.), Rep. Brad Sherman (D-Calif.) and other Democrats who are pushing back against the administration’s serial appeasement. Clinton sure sounded, at least when wooing the American Israel Public Affairs Committee audience recently, as though she did not favor letting Iran run rampant. (“This deal must come with vigorous enforcement, strong monitoring, clear consequences for any violations and a broader strategy to confront Iran’s aggression across the region. We cannot forget that Tehran’s fingerprints are on nearly every conflict across the Middle East, from Syria to Lebanon to Yemen. . . . Iranian provocations, like the recent ballistic missile tests, are also unacceptable and should be answered firmly and quickly including with more sanctions.”) It would be helpful to reiterate that sentiment in light of recent events.

Congress should conduct its oversight duties and on a bipartisan basis increase sanctions against Iran while reauthorizing sanctions due to expire this year. And the presidential candidates should be clear and unanimous in objecting to the president’s concessions following the Joint Comprehensive Plan of Action. It is in their interest to do so, for one of them is going to have a much harder time restoring American credibility and enforcing international norms against Iran if the administration plans on giving away the store before Obama leaves office.

5a) U.S. Seizes More Iranian Weapons at Sea

by IPT News

A U.S. naval vessel intercepted a large Iranian weapons shipment, seizing massive quantities of arms and sophisticated weaponry destined for Yemen, the Pentagon announced Monday.

The seizure occurred in the Arabian Sea on March 28, officials said, marking the third interception of an Iranian weapons shipment in recent weeks. The ship was carrying 1,500 AK-47 rifles, 200 rocket-propelled grenade launchers, and 21 .50-caliber machine guns. They were en route to Houthi insurgents battling in Yemen's civil war at Iran's behest.

The U.S. Navy let the crew go after seizing the weapons, in line with current rules of engagement, according to a U.S. official speaking with Fox News.

This incident marks another major development in a string of recent Iranian provocations, indicating growing belligerence among the Islamic Republic's decision makers.

Last month, Iran tested missiles in violation of a United Nations Security Council resolution associated with the nuclear deal, which prohibits Iran from developing its ballistic missile program for eight years.

Iran also continues to expand its presence throughout the Middle East in line with its regional hegemonic ambitions.

On Monday, Iranian General Ali Arasteh said that the Islamic Republic deployed special forces to Syria as "advisers." Last month, Arasteh revealed that Iran may deploy commandos and snipers from its regular armed forces as military advisers in Iraq and Syria.

Iran expert Ali Alfoneh told the Jerusalem Post that "the regular army has begged for some time to get involved in Syria because it would be a source of prestige and funding."

The deployment indicates a shift in the army's constitutional mission focused on ensuring Iran's territorial integrity, writes Iran expert Amir Toumaj of The Long War Journal.

These developments support critics of the nuclear deal who argue that financial sanctions relief emboldens Iran to increase its sponsorship of terrorism throughout the region and worldwide.

+++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++