Final Review of "In The Arena." Free Stuff!

Hillary's believes, because she is a woman, she deserves
to be president. She should be judged, as any human
should be, on her achievements which are predominantly
mythical and disastrous

+++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++
You have been Trumped: https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=OemqVWi_R0k&sns=em

This was sent to me by a very dear friend, a former neighbor and a loyal fellow memo reader with this comment: "While it appears this article never made it into the New Yorker magazine, it is very well written and deserves a few minutes of your time. It tells a lot about what we could expect from either of the final candidates should they win the White House." (See 1 below.)
===
As I have written , time and again, I tend to be a pessimist. Thus, I always calculate the downside first.

I have always maintained I can handle my victories it is my defeats that concern me. Coping with a big ego is not one of my serious problems.

Success can overwhelm even the best. It can alter one's continuance of what made them successful. Consequently,  how one handles their success is critical.

In the case of Warren Buffet, for instance, his investing acumen led people to send money his way and consequently the enormous sums at his disposal prevented him from investing in smaller cap companies on the way up and his portfolio performance has been less than great so he switched his investment strategy to owning entire companies.

In the case of Donald Trump his success led him to believe he could place his name on just about anything and it would become successful.  By doing so he lost control, in some investment cases, and the Trump cache has been cheapened. These few failures are now dogging him as he seeks the presidency.

His success in business and media led Trump to believe he can now run our nation. So the question becomes, will Trump be able to sublimate his ego and place the nation and his party's desire to win first?  I do not believe Trump is a racist. I believe he becomes too consumed with winning and, as a presidential candidate, loses sight of the ultimate goal and turns boorish or, perhaps, he knows this tactic reaches the disaffected in ways that have never been tried and he has proven works.

Most business persons fail at politics.  Engine Charlie Wilson, from General Motors, proved a disaster and the current head of the V.A, the former Chairman of Procter and Gamble, just stuck his foot in his mouth equating vet lines with those at Disney.

I am about 50 pages from finishing "In The Arena" and will complete my report in this memo.

There is a connection between the closing message Hegseth expresses in his final section and who I believe, between the two candidates, can best serve our nation as America is confronted by three critical adversaries that, in the author's view, are committed to our destruction and are positioning themselves accordingly.

Neither Hillary and/or Trump would be the candidate I would choose to lead America.  They reflect more our decline than our ascendancy but they are the choices I/we have and I am not going to waste my vote in an act of protest. That Trump is not a true Republican does not concern me because I am not a Republican.  That Trump is not a conservative on every issue does not concern me though I tend to view every issue, even social ones,  through a financial prism.

What does concern me is whether Trump will surround himself with talent that will give him constructive advice, be unabashedly honest and will Trump listen and make the decisions our nation so badly needs made. I have little faith in the Republican Congress to do anything meaningful unless Trump pushes them.

I do not believe Hillary measures up to my hopes and desires, does not even equate with the threats and challenges Hegseth suggests we face and must meet and thus, I remain reluctantly in Trump's corner with a high degree of discomfort and anxiety.

Is Netanyahu going to become a victim of his own miscalculations?  Time will tell. (See 2 and 2a below.)
+++
Iran's ambition has not changed. Meanwhile, The Iran Deal facilitates their ability to realize their ambition. (See 3 below.)
===
A clever title and a better article by my friend, Allen West. (See 4 below.)
====
Review of Part 3 of Pete Hegseth's: "In The Arena."

I will begin by restating Hegseth's purpose of writing "In The Arena" and where he actually left off by quoting a comment made to him by a stoic Vietnam War veteran who said : "Pete, don't miss your war."

The essence of the message was not to develop a thirst for war but to to get involved in and defend what makes America special - our constitutionally protected freedom, citizenship, equal opportunity and duty to preserve all three. Not missing your war speaks to duty, courage, God and country.

Hegseth also challenges the phrase " everything in moderation" which might be a nice sentiment but has no place nor is conducive to being in the arena. Can you imagine Reagan demanding the Russians to tear down part of The Berlin War?

In Hegseth's view, The American Dream needs to be revitalized and his own experience suggests human nature has not changed and will not.  America remains threatened by dangerous ideologies and he  discusses the difference between the thinking of leftists, Fukuyama (End of History) and Huntington (Clash of Civilizations.") and concludes recent history has proven Huntington was correct.

Influential cadres of American elites have embraced Fukuyam's belief history is a thing of the past and will be replaced by topics like climate change, global government, reparations,and social justice. These concepts and belief seem to defy the reality of what America faces ie. increased threats from Radical Islamism, China's growing militarism and a host of consequences from misguided thinking by  those who now challenge the values of the West which has resulted in unilateral disarming and globalist thinking.

Hegseth fervently argues the Islamic State wants to destroy the modern world and replace it with their theology and are doing so by exploiting the refugee crisis, which is sinking Europe, with the intent of eventually inserting Sharia Law. No they will not do so militarily but demographically first and then politically. The author considers Islam as neither a religion of peace nor a religion of violence but a religion of submission.

He further argues the West is deluding itself by its view of Islam and Americans should  not embrace the left's view that land divisions, called for in the Sykes-Picot Agreement, are the basic cause of Middle Eastern violence.

Yes, Hegseth see China and its increasing bellicosity as a major threat . Their leaders see America's rising debt, declining economic growth and shrinking military as a signal the American hegemony is ending.  The emerging tenets behind China's rise are: order is valued over freedom, ethics over law, and elite governance over democracy and human rights.

Hegseth's responds by asserting America's economic model is superior to China's and free enterprise , properly oriented and unleashed, carries the day against central planning but America's dominance is not ordained.  America's co-existent brand of foreign policy is slowly being trumped by international organizations which are bolstering Islamists and China.

The thrust of an Islamic Caliphate, a Chinese Dream and the globalist's desire for One World cannot mutually coexist.  Furthermore, the massive transfer of power away from nation-states to the E.U's un-elected and unaccountable technocrats has been a flop in Hegseth's view.

Hegseth concludes by ticking off a list of essentials, many of which correlate with the pleadings I have made in my memos.

In essence Hegseth too, wants to "Make America Great Again" and save it from the collapse that will inevitably occur if we continue to embrace the leftist views of surrender etc.

1) We must teach citizenship and the literal meaning of the constitution.
2) We must insist upon a common language.
3) We need to institute a Minuteman Corp.
4) He argues for school choice as an antidote to our failing school systems
5) Make elections competitive again.
6) Simplify the tax code.
7) Invest in 20th Century infrastructure
8) Equip women, through legislative changes, to feel comfortable staying home with children.
9) Focus on education that allows for employment, ie. vocations.
10) Overhaul the civil service.
11) Rebuild our military and increase spending on defense.
12) End political correctness which has choked the military's rules of engagement.
13) Prepare a strategy for a long war against violent Islamism
14) Substitute a League of Democracies  and abandon The U.N.
15) Re-institute America as a beacon of freedom.

I commend this book to anyone who is repelled by the damage progressive, radical left thinking has done to our nation and particularly the last seven years of the Obama Administration.

I received this from a long time friend and fellow memo reader and it seems to fit what Hegseth has written.

Election 2016 is coming!

The folks who are getting the free stuff don't like
The folks who are paying for the free stuff, because
The folks who are paying for the  free stuff  can no longer afford to pay for both the  free stuff and  their own stuff.

And the folks who are paying for the free  stuff
Want the free stuff to stop.
And the folks who are getting the free stuff  want even more free stuff  on top of the  free stuff  they are already getting!

Now... The people who are forcing the people who pay for the free stuff  have told the people who are RECEIVING the free stuff  that the people who are PAYING for the free stuff  are being mean, prejudiced, and racist.

So... The people who are GETTING the free stuff  have been convinced they need to hate the people who are paying for the Free stuff  by the people who are forcing some people to pay for their free stuff  and giving them the free stuff in the first place.

We have let the free stuff  giving go on for so long that there are now more people getting  free stuff  than paying for the Free stuff .

Now understand this.  All great democracies have committed financial suicide somewhere between 200 and 250  years after being founded.

The reason?

The voters figured out they could vote themselves money from the treasury by electing people who promised to give them money from the treasury in exchange for electing them.

The United States officially became a Republic in 1776, 238 years ago.

The number of people now getting free stuff
outnumbers the people paying for the free stuff.

Failure to change that spells the end of the United States as we know it.

ELECTION 2016 IS COMING and A Nation of Sheep Breeds a Government of Wolves!

For all our sake PLEASE  Take a Stand!!!

Borders: Closed!

Language: English only

Culture: God, Constitution, and the Bill of Rights!

Drug Free: Mandatory Drug Screening before Welfare!

NO freebies to: Non-Citizens!

+++
I often end these memos with something humorous because the body of them is mostly serious so here goes:

NEWS ALERT! : JEWISH WOMAN ORDERS DIRECTLY FROM MENU!

SKOKIE, IL - At 7:52 last evening, according to local reports, a local Jewish lady, Laura Becker, ordered directly from a menu without asking for any changes, substitutions, or negotiating with the waitress.

We have not been able to independently verify the claims, but if confirmed, this would represent the first case in documented history of a Jew ordering food without making any changes or special requests.

I simply did not know what to do, said waitress Susan Smith. She said I would like the tuna on rye, please and then handed me back the menu.

I just kept waiting but she didn't say anything. No can you hold the lettuce, no can I substitute the coleslaw for pickles? Nothing! It was very scary, said a clearly shaken Smith.

Though some have called into question the accuracy of Smiths claim, others have taken a different approach.
If that did happen, and I'm not saying it didn't, but if it did, then that woman who ordered was clearly not Jewish,' said local drapery consultant Mike Viner.

If confirmed, the effect of the incident would have enormous impact on the gastronomical identity of Jews around the world.

Please check back for details regarding this developing story.

( And they didn't even mention not liking the table location )

+++
Dick
+++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++
1) No matter who your favorite candidate might be … the article is an interesting read, VERY INTERESTING AND HONEST

The author is the political correspondent for Bloomberg and wrote extensively about Obama even before he was elected.  

"Who is Donald Trump?"  The better question may be, "What is Donald Trump?"   

The answer? A giant middle finger from average Americans to the political and media establishment.

Some Trump supporters are like the 60s white girls who dated black guys just to annoy their parents.  But most Trump supporters have simply had it with the Demo-socialists and the "Republicans In Name Only."  They know there isn't a dime's worth of difference between Hillary Rodham and Jeb Bush, and only a few cents worth between Rodham and the other GOP candidates.

Ben Carson is not an "establishment" candidate, but the Clinton machine would pulverize Carson ; and the somewhat rebellious Ted Cruz will (justifiably so) be tied up with natural born citizen lawsuits (as might Marco Rubio).  The Trump supporters figure they may as well have some fun tossing Molotov cocktails at Wall Street and Georgetown while they watch the nation collapse.  Besides - lightning might strike, Trump might get elected, and he might actually fix a few things.  Stranger things have happened (the nation elected an islamo-]Marxist in 2008 and Bruce Jenner now wears designer dresses.)

Millions of conservatives are justifiably furious.  They gave the Republicans control of the House in 2010 and control of the Senate in 2014, and have seen them govern no differently than Nancy Pelosi and Harry Reid.  Yet those same voters are supposed to trust the GOP in 2016?  Why?

Trump did not come from out of nowhere.  His candidacy was created by the last six years of Republican failures.

No reasonable person can believe that any of the establishment candidates [dems or reps] will slash federal spending, rein in the Federal Reserve, cut burdensome business regulations, reform the tax code, or eliminate useless federal departments (the Departments of Education, Housing and Urban Development, Energy, etc.).  Even Ronald Reagan was unable to eliminate Department of Education.  (Of course, getting shot at tends to make a person less of a risk-taker.)  No reasonable person can believe that any of the nation's major problems will be solved by Rodham, Bush, and the other dishers of donkey fazoo now eagerly eating corn in Iowa and pancakes in New Hampshire .

Many Americans, and especially Trump supporters, have had it with:

·     Anyone named Bush

·     Anyone named Clinton

·     Anyone who's held political office

·     Political correctness

·     Illegal immigration

·     Massive unemployment

·     Phony "official" unemployment and inflation figures

·     Welfare waste and fraud

·     People faking disabilities to go on the dole

·     VA waiting lists

·     TSA airport groping

·     ObamaCare

·     The Federal Reserve's money-printing schemes

·     Wall Street crooks like Jon Corzine

·     Michelle Obama's vacations

·     Michelle Obama's food police

·     Barack Obama's golf

·     Barack Obama's arrogant and condescending lectures

·     Barack Obama's criticism/hatred of America

·     Valerie Jarrett·     " Holiday trees"

·     Hollywood hypocrites

·     Global warming nonsense

·     Cop killers

·     Gun confiscation threats

·     Stagnant wages

·     Boys in girls' bathrooms

·     Whiny, spoiled college students who can't even place the Civil War in the correct century... and that's just the short list. 

Trump supporters believe that no Democrat wants to address these issues, and that few Republicans have the courage to address these issues.  They certainly know that none of the establishment candidates are better than barely listening to them, and Trump is their way of saying, "Screw you, Hillary Rodham Rove Bush!"  The more the talking head political pundits insult the Trump supporters, the more supporters he gains.  (The only pundits who seem to understand what is going on are Democrats Doug Schoen and Pat Caddell and Republican John LeBoutillier.  All the others argue that the voters will eventually "come to their senses" and support an establishment candidate.) 

But America does not need a tune-up at the same old garage.  It needs a new engine installed by experts - and neither Rodham nor Bush are mechanics with the skills or experience to install it.  Hillary Rodham is not a mechanic; she merely manages a garage her philandering husband abandoned.  Jeb Bush is not a mechanic; he merely inherited a garage.  Granted, Trump is also not a mechanic, but he knows where to find the best ones to work in his garage.  He won't hire his brother-in-law or someone to whom he owes a favor; he will hire someone who lives and breathes cars.

"How dare they revolt!" the "elites" are bellowing.  Well, the citizens are daring to revolt, and the RINOs had better get used to it.  "But Trump will hand the election to Clinton !"  That is what the Karl Rove-types want people to believe, just as the leftist media eagerly shoved "Maverick" McCain down GOP throats in 2008 - knowing he would lose to Obama.  But even if Trump loses and Rodham wins, she would not be dramatically different than Bush or most of his fellow candidates.  They would be nothing more than caretakers, not working to restore America 's greatness but merely presiding over the collapse of a massively in-debt nation.  A nation can perhaps survive open borders; a nation can perhaps survive a generous welfare system.  But no nation can survive both - and there is little evidence that the establishment candidates of either party understand that.  The United States cannot forever continue on the path it is on.  At some point it will be destroyed by its debt. 

Yes, Trump speaks like a bull wander[ing] through a china shop, but the truth is that the borders do need to be sealed; we cannot afford to feed, house, and clothe 200,000 Syrian immigrants for decades (even if we get inordinately lucky and none of them are ISIS infiltrators or Syed Farook wannabes); the world is at war with radical Islamists; all the world's glaciers are not melting.

Is Trump the perfect candidate?  Of course not.  Neither was Ronald Reagan.  But unless we close our borders and restrict immigration, all the other issues are irrelevant.  One terrorist blowing up a bridge or a tunnel could kill thousands.  One jihadist poisoning a city's water supply could kill tens of thousands.  One electromagnetic pulse attack from a single Iranian nuclear device could kill tens of millions.  Faced with those possibilities, most Americans probably don't care that Trump relied on eminent domain to grab up a final quarter acre of property for a hotel, or that he boils the blood of the Muslim Brotherhood thugs running the Council on American-Islamic Relations.  While Attorney General Loretta Lynch's greatest fear is someone giving a Muslim a dirty look, most Americans are more worried about being gunned down at a shopping mall by a crazed [islamic] lunatic who treats his prayer mat better than his three wives and who thinks 72 virgins are waiting for him in paradise.

The establishment is frightened to death that Trump will win, but not because they believe he will harm the nation.  They are afraid he will upset their taxpayer-subsidized apple carts.  While Obama threatens to veto legislation that spends too little, they worry that Trump will veto legislation that spends too much. 

You can be certain that if an establishment candidate wins in November 2016 … [their] cabinet positions will be filled with the same people we've seen before.  The washed-up has-beens of the Clinton and Bush administrations will be back in charge.  The hacks from Goldman Sachs will continue to call the shots.  Whether it is Bush's Karl Rove or Clinton 's John Podesta, who makes the decisions in the White House will matter little.  

If the establishment wins, America loses 

++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++
2) How Isolated is Netanyahu?

By JonATHAN S. TOBIN 

After the much-anticipated French-sponsored Middle East peace conference ended last Friday with a whimper rather than a bang, Israeli Prime Minister Netanyahu’s critics were quick to point out that he shouldn’t be celebrating. They were right in that the event may be just the prelude to more such initiatives whose sole intent was to isolate the Israelis and perhaps set up one more climactic confrontation with the Obama administration this fall after the presidential election. It’s possible that at that point the United States might not oppose a new push for recognition of a Palestinian state without requiring it to first requiring it to make peace with Israel. If so, any satisfaction of the clear failure of the Paris conference would be premature. But as Netanyahu soon proved with a visit to Russia that highlighted Israel's increasingly warm ties with the Putin regime, his nation is not as isolated as the prime minister’s domestic critics and foreign foes think.

Despite the French boasts about their plans to convene a conference that would establish a framework for Middle East peace without the presence of Israel or the Palestinians, nothing was accomplished in Paris. Nothing, that is, other than the usual bloviating by the French hosts and various Third World foreign ministers that were allowed to make speeches. If critics of the Obama administration can glean any satisfaction from this farce, it is that Secretary of State John Kerry was forced to sit through all of it for the sake of amity with Paris even though he was clearly put out by the futility of the effort and the indignity of having to attend. The platitudes issued at the end of the gathering could have just as easily been put out without the expense and inconvenience of the summit which left the world farther from a resolution of the conflict between Israel and the Palestinians than it had been before it started. The only thing it accomplished was to encourage the Palestinians to continue to refuse to negotiate directly with the Israelis because such conferences make them think the international community will bludgeon and isolate the Jewish state into concessions at no cost to themselves.

Moreover, those counseling that danger lies ahead, specifically from an Obama administration that, despite only having seven months left in office, still feels it has a score to settle with Netanyahu. The Palestinians torpedoed every administration Middle East initiative over the past seven and a half years even though each one sought to tilt the diplomatic playing field in their direction. But the White House continues to rail at the Israelis while largely giving the Palestinians a pass for their ongoing refusal to make peace.

That pattern reasserted itself this week when National Security Advisor Susan Rice addressed the American Jewish Committee and, though promising military aid and saying that Israel wouldn’t be abandoned, also blasted Israeli government policies on settlements. Rice drew an analogy between the presence of Jews in places that are not only part of Jewish history but also decades old, and Palestinian incitement and violence. In this view, the mere act of a Jew living in the West Bank or Jerusalem is morally equivalent to a Palestinian murdering a Jew. Whatever one’s views about the wisdom of the settlements, this is offensive.

Nor does such false moral equivalence come to grips with the fact that the only thing that has prevented the implementation of the two-state solution the U.S. advocates is the fact that Palestinian Authority leader Mahmoud Abbas, like his predecessor Yasir Arafat, finds it impossible to recognize the legitimacy of a Jewish state no matter where its borders might be drawn.

Such rhetoric leaves open the possibility of a betrayal of Israel at another peace conference later this year or at the United Nations. That is especially true since Rice’s talk of this being “a time of concern and sometimes of sorrow” for those observing Israel, she is not talking about it being assaulted by Palestinian terror so much as she is mourning yet another failed U.S. effort to manipulate the composition of the Israeli government.

But as much as the hostility of Washington and the growing chorus of critics of the Jewish state in Europe — who are clearly influenced by the rising tide of anti-Semitism on the continent — is a cause for deep concern, the situation is not as dire as it might have seemed in Paris. The first piece of evidence was Netanyahu's warm reception in Moscow today.

While it would be misleading to assume that Netanyahu’s fourth meeting with Vladimir Putin in less than year makes Russia an Israel ally, it is nonetheless clear that Moscow is more interested in its increased security cooperation with the Jewish state than in helping the French or President Obama. The Israelis must be wary of Putin, who is playing a dangerous game with military intervention in Syria. But the visit, along with growing Israeli ties to moderate Arab countries that are disillusioned with and scared by the Obama administration’s appeasement of Iran, are a reminder that the new Middle East that has arisen in the wake of America’s retreats is one in which Jerusalem is not as isolated as its critics might think.

Netanyahu’s statement last week, in which he spoke of being willing to negotiate about the 2002 Arab Peace Initiative (a statement that was greeted with silence by the international community and a demand from Abbas that Israel withdraw unconditionally from every inch of the land it won in 1967 including the Old City of Jerusalem), was a bow in the direction of moderate Arabs who no longer see the Jewish state solely as an enemy. Though this alliance of convenience should, like ties with Russia, not be mistaken for a relationship based on common values and trust, it is nevertheless a fact. Saudi Arabia, as well as nations like Jordan and Egypt, understand that they need Israel as a bulwark against the unfolding chaos in Syria and an Iran that has been enriched and empowered by Obama’s nuclear deal.

With growing ties with Moscow and Arab countries that pay lip service to the Palestinian cause but won’t risk their security for it, Israel is not alone nor without options. The next several months will be a perilous time for Israel as the Palestinians seek to take advantage of Obama’s waning influence. They, along with their international cheering section that is indifferent to the influence and power of Hamas and the possibility that a Palestinian state in the West Bank would become a second Gaza, know that the next administration is bound to be more favorable to Israel than its predecessor. At the very least, both a Trump or a Clinton administration will not start out with a grudge against Netanyahu or the mistaken belief that more “daylight” between Washington and Jerusalem is a formula for peace as Obama did. The future is uncertain, and no one should underestimate the dangers for Israel. But it is nowhere near as bleak as Netanyahu’s critics claim.

2a)  Political Earthquake in Israel

Netanyahu now may face his most serious challenge since taking office in 2009.

By William A. Galston

Israeli Prime Minister Benjamin Netanyahu’s recent decision to fire his widely respected defense minister, Moshe Ya’alon, and replace him with right-wing populist firebrand Avigdor Lieberman has triggered a political earthquake in Israel. Mr. Netanyahu now may face his most serious political challenge since taking office in 2009. His move also raises fundamental questions about the governance and character of the Jewish state.

Leading figures long associated with Mr. Netanyahu’s Likud Party have criticized his decision. Benny Begin, a Likud legislator, characterized it in a TV interview in Israel as “delusional.” Moshe Arens, a former defense minister, wrote in the Haaretz newspaper that “Choosing between an excellent defense minister serving in a narrow coalition . . . and obtaining a few more coalition votes should have been easy. But Benjamin Netanyahu made the wrong choice.”

Just months ago, a Likud press release had this to say about Mr. Lieberman: “He is a man who has never led even a single soldier to battle and never had to take a single operational decision in his life. He isn’t even qualified to be a television talking head on military issues.”

Mr. Ya’alon has resigned from the Likud Party and from the Knesset. But his withdrawal from politics is only temporary. In a letter to potential supporters, he writes: “I regard this period as a ‘time-out’ after which I intend to return and run for Israel’s national leadership.”

If he does, other well-known figures, such as former Likud Interior Minister Gideon Sa’ar and former Israel Defense Forces (IDF) Chief of Staff Gabi Ashkenazi, are likely to join him. A recent poll conducted for the Jerusalem Post found that a new party headed by Mr. Ya’alon would win as many seats in the Knesset as Mr. Netanyahu’s Likud. Parties that have been unwilling to enter the prime minister’s right-leaning government would be more inclined to join forces with Mr. Ya’alon to form a centrist coalition.

Moshe Ya’alon is no one’s idea of a dove. But his tough line is based on security, not ideology. “I’m not a supporter of ‘greater Israel,’ ” he has said. “I supported the Oslo Accords. I was willing to give up territory in return for peace. But the Palestinians are not partners for that kind of deal—at least not in the foreseeable future.” This argument suggests that Mr. Ya’alon would be open to the security-based proposals just unveiled by Commanders for Israel’s Security, a coalition of former members of the IDF, Shin Bet (the Israel Security Agency), Mossad and police forces. These proposals—including completing the West Bank security barrier, instituting strict border control along this barrier, and freezing settlement building—are designed to enhance Israel’s security while preserving the conditions for future negotiations for a two-state solution.

As he left office last month, Mr. Ya’alon pointed to what he sees as dangerous developments in his country. “I fought with all my might against phenomena of extremism, violence and racism in Israeli society that threaten its fortitude,” he said in his May 22 final speech as defense minister. But now, “dangerous forces have taken over Israel and the Likud movement . . . and are trying to influence the image and values of the IDF.”

A recent event—the killing of a wounded Palestinian attacker in March by an Israeli soldier—brought these concerns to a head. Mr. Lieberman leaped to the accused soldier’s defense and appeared by his side in court. Mr. Netanyahu equivocated but eventually called the soldier’s father, stirring consternation among senior military officials. Mr. Ya’alon characterized the episode as a clear violation of the code that governs the IDF’s conduct. He urged officers at all levels to feel free to speak their minds, even if criticizing military or political leadership, and to act “in accordance with your human conscience and moral compass and not according to which way the winds are blowing.” In his farewell speech, he exhorted military leaders: “Remember, an army needs to win, but we must remain human, even after the battle.”

In Mr. Ya’alon’s view, rising Jewish extremism imperils Israel’s existence. In his final press conference as defense minister, he expressed confidence in a “sane” majority of Israelis who seek a “Jewish, democratic, and liberal state.” He emphasized the importance of the final adjective: a healthy society “accepts each person as a person, without distinction of religion, race, gender, ethnic origin or sexual orientation, a tolerant and accepting country for the weakest and the minorities, who we have the duty to embrace and not to incite against.”

Israelis are growing weary of Prime Minister Netanyahu’s endless political maneuvering. In a recent survey, only 36% said they were satisfied with his performance in office. Against this backdrop, Mr. Ya’alon’s staunch defense of basic principles over political expediency represents an alternative that many Israelis are likely to find appealing.

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

3) .Iran Experts: Nuclear Deal Has Emboldened Regime, Not Altered Its 

Hegemonic Ambitions, Human-Rights Abuses
By Ruthie Blum

The Iranian regime’s hegemonic ambitions and human-rights abuses have not been altered by the nuclear agreement Tehran reached with world powers in July, two US-based Iranian-born experts toldThe Algemeiner on Tuesday. If anything, they said, the Joint Comprehensive Plan of Action (JCPOA) has emboldened the powers-that-be in the Islamic Republic.

Pooya Dayanim, president of the California-based Iranian Jewish Public Affairs Committee, and Reza Parchizadeh, co-chair of TahlilRooz, a Persian-language think thank, were responding to a statement made on Monday by Iranian Foreign Ministry spokesman Hossein Jaberi Ansari – and reported by semi-official state news agency Fars — that nothing has changed, as far as Iran is concerned,  in the aftermath of the JCPOA.

“The Islamic Republic of Iran will continue moving on the orbit of its strategic policies in confrontation against terrorism as well as all other issues related to foreign policy and the agreement made on the special nuclear issue doesn’t affect the Islamic Republic of Iran’s macro policies,” Ansari told reporters during in his weekly press conference in Tehran. “The Islamic Republic of Iran adopts its policies based on the general principles of the country’s foreign policy in different fields and based on the existing realities, needs and necessities.”

The Iranian regime, Dayanim said, “has now made it clear that it is continuing its expansionist policies, growing its military and perfecting its ballistic-missile capabilities — whether anyone in the West likes it or not, or whether its actions are in contravention of the nuclear deal or not.” Ansari’s statement, he added, “is in line with the harsh comments that Supreme Leader Khamenei has been making over the past two weeks about the West, the United States and Israel.”

Ansari, said Dayanim, “made it crystal clear that the leadership is cherry-picking the Iran deal and implementing what it wants — and not implementing what it doesn’t want — and that its dangerous de-stabilizing policies will continue unabated.”

Furthermore, added Dayanim, “Such statements should be particularly embarrassing for US President Barack Obama and Secretary of State John Kerry, as Kerry’s own State Department again reported that Iran is still the top state sponsor of terrorism; and Amnesty International issued a release that repression in Iran has not been this bad in the past 20 years.”

Indeed, Dayanim concluded, “Iran has not changed and will not change. This is something the regime keeps telling us, yet we keep ignoring the harsh truth. The policy of detente with Iran has not caused regime change or behavioral change — or any change, for that matter. Instead, it has emboldened the regime, which has found that all it needs is a charming, smiling and lying foreign minister to appease the West and give it cover for its continued bad behavior.”

Parchizadeh concurred. “The significance of Ansari’s announcement is that while the Iranian regime wanted — and still wants — the JCPOA so that it can get the sanctions lifted and receive lots of money, when it comes to limiting its production and testing of missiles and curbing the regime’s influence in the region, most notably in Syria and Iraq, it has no deal with the US and the West,” he said. “All of this means that nothing is going to change inside Iran. The condition of human rights is going to remain tragic, and even further deteriorate. As long as the Islamist regime is there in Iran, nothing will change for the better.”

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

4)A Nation in Need of Ritalin

By Allen West

Ritalin is a central nervous system stimulant that affects chemicals in the brain and nerves that contribute to hyperactivity and impulse control. As I sit back, examine and assess our American culture, I see a real need for this nation to get a dose of Ritalin.

I remember being a young Army Captain stationed at Ft. Riley, Kansas, and seeing a new show featuring a family of little yellow cartoon characters. I was entertained by “The Simpsons,” but never thought they would still be around all these years after debuting in December 1989 – the same month and year I got married. The reality TV show “Survivor” debuted in May 2000; who would have ever thought it would still be around. Consider all the various iterations of Real Housewives and other reality shows and adult cartoons that dominate the television scene. The result has been a degradation of the ability of the American public to be deep, insightful thinkers. We have become a nation that embraces the soundbite; and has very little lasting attention for critical matters and issues.

With the advent of the 24/7 news cycle and the same for sports programs, we are constantly bombarded, running from item to item. We possess communications devices that keep us in a constant respond-and-react mode when it comes to information. As well, we have now figured out how to shorten our language into a new code system.

Why is this detrimental to our American way of life and society? Our lives are dominated by slogans and poll-tested schemes and messages.

What if you hit the streets and asked people what was the GDP growth percentage for the last fiscal quarter? Hint, it was less than 1%. Or what if we were to ask Americans about the relationship between the unemployment rate and the workforce participation rate? What would happen if you asked Americans the difference between a progressive, flat, and consumption-based tax system/policy?

Don’t get me wrong; I am not looking for a nation of policy wonks who can articulate the problems with quantitative easing. However, the danger of what is happening in America is that through the media and other cultural sources we are constantly racing from one thing to another. We do not stop and take the time to comprehend and understand pressing issues – or perhaps we just do not want to? If the latter is the case, it is a very precarious place for us to be as a nation. We open ourselves up to being led like sheep to the slaughter.

As I look at what is happening in Venezuela, I must ask the question: how can someone openly declaring to be a socialist achieve electoral success and have a patronage? After all, it does appear that the message of “free” eventually leads to economic ruin. And in our institutions of higher learning we do not even allow for the free and open debate of ideas and varying principles of governance. We have heard about these protective measures such as “safe spaces” being proposed to prevent the fair and equitable exchange of thought. When that occurs, it only serves to erode critical thought – and the immediate impulse for some is to attack anyone thinking differently.

And the attacks come in many forms, as we have seen with the Attorney General of the Virgin Islands, Claude Walker, who wanted to issue subpoenas on policy research that challenges assertions such as climate change. And in the State Senate of California, they attempted to create legislation that would punish those who did not embrace that message. It is because we have been so bombarded with images, optics, and soundbites that result in a hyperactive reaction instead of spurring us forth to have the honest debate and study the issue.

You have to ask, would the prevailing attitude in America today have enabled us to create this great Constitutional Republic? If those Americans back then were just too busy to ponder great theoretical issues like freedom, liberty, and taxation, where would be we today? Is it possible that someone in America today could write a document such as the Declaration of Independence? Are we still the same nation that can produce such insightful thinkers who could develop a document such as the Constitution of the United States?

Heck, those two founding documents are far more meaningful, and shorter, than the Patient Protection and Affordable Care Act that is collapsing under its own weight. Somewhere along the line we have become more verbose, yet less visionary. We have become busier, but are we are productive? We have become more adept at having more information inputs, but are we critical thinkers, able to analyze all that we are receiving?  

We need to calm down, slow down, and think objectively once again as a nation. We need to have a focused discussion on principles that will provide for our success and prosperity. We are pinging all over the place. We have become pinballs, bouncing all over the place and off everything. We believe that we are racking up big points, but in essence we are just being knocked around.

We must stimulate our minds so we can continue to be citizens in a Republic, not disinterested, ill-informed, disengaged and disaffected subjects.

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