It Is Anarchy Time and More Will Come before Obama Is Out Of Office. He had a Magical Opportunity and He Blew It Badly.

;Liberals who always protect their own at any cost.
+++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++
Yesterday Dallas exploded and Obama could not avoid bringing up the gun wedge issue.  In time i suspect he will also blame poverty, lack of education, etc.  Most urban areas are inhabited by black citizens and their poor education is partly because liberals support unions that control public education, the unemployed are mostly because Obama's economic policies have proven failures (education is key to work opportunities,) liberals have done everything imaginable to destroy the family structure with their dependency programs and Obama has divided our nation and caused us to even distrust our police.

Taking personal responsibility is no longer stressed as a character builder.  Being American used to mean something special but much that made this so has been seriously eroded by policies and politics of the left and failure on the part of the right to take a firm stance in protest. Political Correctness has gripped our society for decades and it has sapped our values in far too many cases and stilled voices of protest.

Yesterday, we also witnessed a display of the sharp division that exists between Democrats and Republicans as the minority members of the Oversight Committee did everything they could to praise Comey and blame those on the opposite side of a witch hunt and waste of tax payer money. (Did these same dolts complain about Obama's "shovel ready  program" that cost a billion and built nothing?).

When a trusted official lays out a case of guilt and then concludes there is none I believe, as long as the questioning is balanced as it was, it is the responsibility of Congress, both aisles, to pursue an inquiry. This applies to the Administration's transfer of guns to Mexican drug dealers, The IRS, Bhengazi and now Hillary's reckless behaviour among other such investigations

Since Obama was elected, I find little that has improved other than some disingenuous statistics related to employment and in virtually every case things have become worse - domestically and foreign.

I expect matters will worsen as we go through one of the most contentious presidential campaigns and Trump will be blamed by Democrats (already has been by Jesse Jackson) for everything that happens because GW is no longer their whipping boy and Obama still has some 6 months to manipulate our Constitution and bring about more discord.

What happened in Dallas is a concerted and coordinated effort on the part of anarchists to bring America to its knees and pit white against black.

Meanwhile, Obama had a special opportunity to heal our nation and help his own people and he has blown it big time.  How sad indeed
===
This from one of my oldest friends and fellow memo readers: "I told my son I wanted him to marry a girl of my choice.  He said “No.”

I told him it was Bill Gates’ daughter.  He said “Okay.”

Got in touch with Bill Gates and told him I wanted his daughter to marry my son.  He said “No.”

Told him my son was the CEO of the World Bank.  He sad “Okay.”

Went to the President of World Bank and told him to make my son CEO.  He said “No.”

Told him my son was Bill Gates son-in-law.  He said “Okay.”

And that, my friends, is exactly how politics works………………………

+++

When your institutions of peace are led by morally corrupt people there is little hope for world betterment.

Wait til Obama heads the U.N. (See 1 and 1a below.)

===

Krauthammer on Comey!  He agrees with my own thoughts expressed in a previous memo linking Comey to Chief Justice Roberts. Both went outside the law to accomplish their desired results(See 2 below.)

Kim did not buy Comey and neither do I.  Excellent article by my courageous and bright friend. Need to read her new book.

Comey sought his own comity, protect his own career and brought a new meaning to double standards.. (See 2a below.)

===
No this video might not get Trump elected but it brings some balance and if liberals were not so unbalanced they might find this of some merit.

As I have said before, we thought when Truman became president we were going to lose the war.  We did not.  When Reagan became president we thought our world was ended. It was not.  When George Bush became president and after 9/11 we thought we were doomed again.  We actually were better off than we are now after almost eight years of that genius called Obama.

If you do not believe this go to Dallas or ask a black woman raising kids or ask a military person, like Allen West or better yet, be honest and think for yourself.

This Video Will Get Donald Trump Elected

If Hillary is elected America will survive but its ability to return to its former status as a world leader is not likely to happen.  Why?  Because we are financially busted and based on her record of questionable achievements there is little hope we can surmount the challenges we face after years of reckless, feckless, hapless leadership.
===

Dick

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

1)

SPECIAL UN ENVOY CRITICIZES BAN KI MOON FOR CONDEMNING ISRAEL WHILE IGNORING THE BLOODTHIRSTY MURDER OF AN ISRAELI CHILD

LAURIE CARDOZA MOORE: "THE UNITED NATION'S DESPICABLE MORAL EQUIVALENCE AND LINKAGE BETWEEN JEWISH BUILDING AND ISLAMIST TERRORISM MUST END!" Nashville, Tennessee (7/6/2016) - Laurie Cardoza-Moore, Special Envoy to the United Nations for the World Council of Independent Christian Churches (WCICC) and President of Proclaiming Justice to The Nations (PJTN), expressed extreme criticism of the UN Secretary General Ban Ki Moon for his condemnation of Israel for building in Jerusalem while the Palestinian Authority continues to publicly incite violence and celebrate the death of Israelis. This week, Ban Ki-Moon urged Israel to 'halt and reverse' a plan for hundreds of new homes. Ban stated that "settlements are illegal under international law" and called on the Israeli government to "halt and reverse such decisions in the interest of peace and a just final status agreement." Laurie Cardoza-Moore stated, "The people of Israel are forced to endure brutal bloodthirsty attacks by Islamic terrorists almost daily while the Secretary-General of the United Nations remains silent.  But as soon as Israelis build homes for their citizens, then the Secretary General finds the time to condemn Jewish building in Jerusalem.  Must I remind the Secretary-General that the people of Israel's historical connection to Jerusalem goes back to Biblical times. Despite 1,300 years of Muslim Arab rule, Jerusalem was never the capital of an Arab entity.  In fact, the PLO's National Covenant, written in 1964 never mentioned Jerusalem.  However, in the Bible, Jerusalem is mentioned almost 700 times.  If Jews cannot build in their own capital city, then where on earth can they build, Mr. Secretary General?"   She continued: "The United Nations was established to safeguard the rights of the persecuted and downtrodden people in the shadow of the holocaust. Instead of fulfilling its own mission it has become a hotbed of anti-Semitism. There can be no justification for stabbing a thirteen-year old Israeli girl to death as she slept in her bed. The United Nation's despicable moral equivalence and incitement by the UN between Jewish building and Islamist terrorism has to end.  In the words of the late German Pastor Dietrich Bonhoeffer, 'Silence in the face of evil, is evil itself: God will not hold us guiltless.  Not to speak is to speak.  Not to act is to act." 1a) Iran Violates the Deal. Now What? By JONATHAN S. TOBIN  In the months since the Iran nuclear deal went into effect, the Obama administration has acknowledged that the behavior of the Islamist regime hasn’t changed much. The Iranians continue to act as the world’s leading state sponsor of terrorism, test illegal ballistic missiles, threaten their neighbors, and seek regional hegemony while its leaders spewed hate at the West, the United States, and Israel. Indeed, in April, the president admitted that the Iranians were undermining “the spirit” of the pact while insisting that they were nonetheless observing the letter of the agreement. But it turns out his trust in the law-abiding nature of his negotiating partners was misplaced. A new report published by German intelligence that was backed up by a statement in the Bundestag by Chancellor Angela Merkel revealed that the Iranians have violated the letter of the deal via a clandestine effort to obtain “high-level” nuclear technology without permission from the United Nations Security Council. The report from the German FBI—the Federal Office for the Protection of the Constitution spoke of Iran’s support for terrorists inside Germany including Hezbollah and Hamas. But just as alarming was the finding that Iran made at least nine recent attempts to acquire technology for nuclear arms development. Though it claimed the majority of those attempts were thwarted by German intelligence, the agency said there was no doubt the Islamist regime would continue “its intensive procurement activities in Germany using clandestine methods to achieve its objectives.” The implications of this report cannot be overestimated. This means that despite all the happy talk from the United States and its Western allies about compliance with the terms of the nuclear pact, their confidence is unfounded. Instead of merely reaping the enormous benefits that have accrued to it from the ending of sanctions and waiting patiently for the pact to expire in ten years before resuming their push for a weapon, Iran has never stopped working to achieve its nuclear ambition. President Obama made concession after concession and allowed Iran to keep its nuclear infrastructure and research programs because he believed the regime wanted to “get right with the world.” But as the Germans have made clear, critics who have said all along that the president’s trust was misplaced were correct. The facts published by the Germans can’t be viewed in isolation. That can’t be the only country where Iran is working to cheat its way to a nuclear weapon. Iran’s overseas reach is considerable both in terms of its secret intelligence operatives as well as the vast terror network that it helps orchestrate via its Hezbollah auxiliaries. Moreover, if the German FBI knows this, it is highly likely that American intelligence also is aware of these activities. That raises questions about whether U.S. officials in the White House and the State Department that have continued to assure us that the letter of the agreement is being observed have been lying to the American people. The revelations also put President Obama’s comments in recent months about the need to encourage Iran to be more open to the world in a different light. What action can the West take to deal with these violations? A year ago when the president and Secretary of State John Kerry were selling the virtues of the deal to a dubious Congress and American people, they told us that sanctions would be snapped back in the event of violations. But this is highly unlikely. As deal skeptics predicted, the administration and the West are too heavily invested in the notion of détente with Iran to respond with the sort of alacrity that might impress Tehran. America’s European allies were never enthusiastic about the Iran sanctions in the first place, and the gold rush of Western businesses to Iran has created a vast constituency for continued appeasement. Yet that should not deter Congress from taking up the issue of Iranian cheating at its earliest opportunity. The first order of business should be to call a halt to the deal the Boeing Company has struck with Iran to sell it commercial aircraft and related goods and services. That agreement was already raising concerns on both sides of the aisle because of the possibility that companies controlled by the Iranian Revolutionary Guard Corps, the entity that runs Tehran’s terror networks would be involved with Boeing. But, given the evidence of Iranian nuclear espionage, a strong message must be sent, and that should mean Congress putting a stop to the effort to allow Boeing to get into bed with terrorists. In addition to that Congress must also make it clear that it will not allow the administration to further relax sanctions or to let foreign companies use dollars to conduct business with Iran. Just as important, this report should signal both Donald Trump—an avowed opponent of the nuclear deal—and Hillary Clinton—who supports it but didn’t take part in the negotiations and isn’t as invested in the myth of Iranian moderation as the president—that U.S. policies toward Iran must change in January. No matter the identity of the next president, President Obama’s successor must begin the work of clawing back the West’s leverage over a rogue regime that cannot be trusted and which presents a clear and present danger to world peace. +++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++ 2)  Comey: A theory By Charles Krauthammer  Why did he do it? FBI Director James Comey spent 14 minutes laying out an unassailable case for prosecuting Hillary Clinton for the mishandling of classified material. Then at literally the last minute, he recommended against prosecution. This is baffling. Under the statute (18 U.S.C. section 793(f)), it’s a felony to mishandle classified information either intentionally or “through gross negligence.” The evidence, as outlined by Comey, is overwhelming. Clinton either sent or received 110 emails in 52 chains containing material that was classified at the time. Eight of these chains contained information that was top secret. A few of the classified emails were so marked, contrary to Clinton’s assertion that there were none. These were stored on a home server that was even less secure than a normal Gmail account. Her communications were quite possibly compromised by hostile powers, thus jeopardizing American national security. “An unclassified system was no place for that conversation,” said Comey of the classified emails. A rather kind euphemism, using the passive voice. In plainer, more direct language: It is imprudent, improper and indeed illegal to be conducting such business on an unsecured private server. Comey summed up Clinton’s behavior as “extremely careless.” How is that not gross negligence? Yet Comey let her off the hook, citing lack of intent. But negligence doesn’t require intent. Compromising national secrets is such a grave offense that it requires either intent or negligence. Lack of intent is, therefore, no defense. But one can question that claim as well. Yes, it is safe to assume that there was no malicious intent to injure the nation. But Clinton clearly intended to set up an unsecured private server. She clearly intended to send those classified emails. She clearly received warnings from her own department about the dangers of using a private email account. She meant to do what she did. And she did it. Intentionally. That’s two grounds for prosecution, one requiring no intent whatsoever. Yet Comey claims that no reasonable prosecutor would bring such a case. Nor has one ever been brought. Not so. Just last year, the Justice Department successfully prosecuted naval reservist Bryan Nishimura, who improperly downloaded classified material to his personal, unclassified electronic devices. The government admitted that there was no evidence that Nishimura intended to distribute the material to others. Nonetheless, he was sentenced to two years of probation, fined and forever prohibited from seeking a security clearance, which effectively kills any chance of working in national security. So why not Hillary Clinton? The usual answer is that the Clintons are treated by a different standard. Only little people pay. They are too well-connected, too well-protected to be treated like everybody else. Alternatively, the explanation lies with Comey: He gave in to implicit political pressure, the desire to please those in power. Certainly plausible, but given Comey’s reputation for probity and given that he holds a 10-year appointment, I’d suggest a third line of reasoning. When Chief Justice John Roberts used a tortured, logic-defying argument to uphold Obamacare, he was subjected to similar accusations of bad faith. My view was that, as guardian of the Supreme Court’s public standing, he thought the issue too momentous — and the implications for the country too large — to hinge on a decision of the court. Especially after Bush v. Gore, Roberts wanted to keep the court from overturning the political branches on so monumental a piece of social legislation. I would suggest that Comey’s thinking, whether conscious or not, was similar: He did not want the FBI director to end up as the arbiter of the 2016 presidential election. If Clinton were not a presumptive presidential nominee but simply a retired secretary of state, he might well have made a different recommendation. Prosecuting under current circumstances would have upended and redirected an already year-long presidential selection process. In my view, Comey didn’t want to be remembered as the man who irreversibly altered the course of American political history. And with no guarantee that the prosecution would succeed, moreover. Imagine that scenario: You knock out of the race the most likely next president — and she ultimately gets acquitted! Imagine how Comey goes down in history under those circumstances. I admit I’m giving Comey the benefit of the doubt. But the best way I can reconcile his reputation for integrity with the grating illogic of his Clinton decision is by presuming that he didn’t want to make history. I don’t endorse his decision. (Nor did I Roberts’.) But I think I understand it. 2a) Comey Ran True to Form The FBI director let Hillary Clinton off, making the safe call—no big surprise there. By KIMBERLEY A. STRASSEL When President Obama in 2013 named James Comey to head the Federal Bureau of Investigation, the president must have sensed that he had picked someone who could be trusted to have his back, even if Mr. Comey had served in the George W. Bush administration. This week, Mr. Obama’s bet paid off when the G-man let Hillary Clintonskate. Not that Mr. Comey had an explicit understanding with the White House. It’s just that Mr. Obama and his savvy political team must have known from the start that Mr. Comey was no John Adams. Not the Adams of Founding Father fame, but John Adams when he was a younger man, who in 1770 agreed to defend British soldiers accused of massacring Boston colonists. The legal task was so unpopular, so dangerous, that nobody else would do it. Yet Adams believed that the law trumped politics, and that the men deserved a fair trial. In taking the case, he risked both his economic and political future. He took it anyway. Mr. Obama announced Mr. Comey’s appointment by praising his “fierce independence and deep integrity.” And the press drooled over several episodes in his history that had given the former Justice Department official a reputation as tough and impartial. What this missed was that Mr. Comey had risen through the ranks precisely by being the opposite of tough. Washington rewards officials who are best at currying public favor, best at surviving, best at creating unfounded legends. And Mr. Comey had been steadily rising in Washington a long time. Consider the episode for which he is perhaps most famous: opposing the George W. Bush administration’s “warrantless wiretapping” program in 2004. The left cast the then-deputy U.S. attorney general as a hero, breathlessly relating how he had rushed to the hospital bedside of then-Attorney General John Ashcroft to oppose reauthorization of the program. Mr. Obama, in choosing Mr. Comey, furthered this lore, feting him as a man who “was prepared to give up a job he loved rather than be part of something he felt was fundamentally wrong.” Yet there was nothing tough or bold about opposing a program that was always going to be explosively controversial. Intervening wasn’t brave; it’s what any watch-your-own-backside official would do. There was nothing courageous in later spinning his role, or tarnishing well-meaning government lawyers whose interpretations of the policy differed from his own. Tough would have been standing behind a program that was vital in the war on terror; tough would have been defending the policy when it became a lightning rod for liberal and media criticism. There was nothing tough, when Mr. Comey was a federal prosecutor in 2003, about expending vast time and resources to harass banker Frank Quattrone over the wording of a single ambiguous email. Tough would have been withstanding the post-Enron, antibusiness populist climate and refusing to burnish one’s prosecutorial credentials by turning Mr. Quattrone into a whipping boy. There was nothing tough about continuing to defend the FBI’s hapless investigation of non-anthrax-mailer Steven Jay Hatfill. Tough would have been admitting the FBI had bungled it. And there was certainly nothing tough in 2003 about appointing a special prosecutor—an old buddy named Patrick Fitzgerald—to investigate the leak of Valerie Plame’s identity as a CIA employee. How tough was it to allow the hounding of Bush officials afterWashington had turned against the war in Iraq? Tough would have been exercising the authority Mr. Comey had to shut the case after Mr. Fitzgerald quickly discovered the leaker’s identity. Mr. Comey instead let it run for three years, let it temporarily put a journalist in jail for refusing to disclose a source, and let it end with the scandalous perjury conviction of Scooter Libby. This isn’t tough. It’s going with the popular flow. All of which is why it was no surprise that Mr. Comey this week let Mrs. Clinton off, despite the damning evidence amassed by the FBI of gross negligence in her handling of classified material. A prosecutor—for this was the position Mr. Comey essentially assumed on Tuesday—who put the law above all else would have brought charges, holding Mrs. Clinton to the same standard as other officials convicted of similarly “extremely careless” handling of classified material. A prosecutor who had spent a lifetime with one eye on politics and one eye on his résumé would have behaved exactly as Mr. Comey did. He must have noticed that Mrs. Clinton, leading in the polls, had recently dangled a job offer in front of his boss, Attorney GeneralLoretta Lynch. He saw President Obama pressing not just his thumb, but his whole body, on the scales of justice. Reporters were on Mrs. Clinton’s side. Democrats were ready to be furious if he decided the wrong way. Mr. Comey wasn’t ready to go it alone and impose accountability on Mrs. Clinton. That would have been tough. That would have been brave. He instead listed her transgressions in detail and left it to the public to pass judgment at the ballot box in November. That isn’t how the system is supposed to work. But Mr. Comey is no John Adams +++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++