https://www.youtube.com/watch?
++++
Trump has been in office about three weeks. During this time women have paraded in protest about everything under the sun, campuses have rioted over free speech prohibitions against those whose views they do not agree with, a Judge has decided to stop Obama's temporary cessation of immigration from seven countries Obama's State Department fingered as incapable of providing adequate documentation of potential immigrants. Democrats have slow walked Trump's nominations for Cabinet position in utter contempt of the nation's citizens and the mass media has continued to nit pick everything Trump and his staff say and/or do.
Meanwhile Trump, seems irrepressible and continues to move forward with his agenda and carrying out his campaign promises.
The mood of the anti-Trumpers remains sour and nothing he does will ever satisfy them.
From my perspective it appears Trump has spoken to a host of heads of governments in a way that they are not used to because he has been blunt and made it clear America is a different country than when Obama ran things. Operating through some of his appointees he has sent a message to Iran we are not pleased with their behaviour, he has attacked Yemen insurgents, he is lining up a series of meetings overseas to include NATO, and various heads of state and he has met and will be meeting with several heads of state here in D.C including those from England, Japan and Israel. And do not forget about his series of conversations with Mexico regarding that wall
With respect to Israel, he seems to be working hard to overcome the bad mouth attitude Obama placed on our relationship with that ally and when it comes to internal events he has met with a variety of business leaders from various economic sectors and laid out his thinking about what he would like for them to consider regarding their plans for domestic growth, pricing of their products and hiring prospects.
When it comes to trade, Trump has disputed the positive arguments about a host of prior agreements claiming that we were suckered.
Finally, he has issued a slew of directives rolling back some of the more onerous regulations Obama and his cadre of agency ideologues imposed and he has met with members of Congress to lay out his agenda regarding replacing Obamacare with a more workable and less costly health plan, legislation relating to an overhaul of our tax code and taken a variety of other legislative initiatives.
Trump has been criticized for moving too fast, doing too much, offending everyone he talks to and tweeting like a man on fire.
Currently the market seems somewhat confused, after its initial burst of enthusiasm, because investors made certain assumptions and are now wondering will they occur and in an expected time sequence - most specifically tax reform.
If everything Trump does, in his first four year term, is based on the first 100 days he has 81% left before judgement day and, at the pace Democrat detractors are taking, he will not have his full cabinet approved for several more weeks nor his Supreme Court nominee for several months. This is all being orchestrated by Democrats so they can attack him for failing to overcome their obstructive tactics.
In between, he met with applauding troops and attended a Fund Raiser for The Red Cross.
Time will tell how well Trump is sitting in the saddle because he has not been challenged by China, N Korea, Russia, Iran, ISIS and/or Obama and how our allies will adjust to his unorthodox ways. In my book he gets A for effort,a somewhat lower grade for effectiveness but, speaking, as a deplorable, I am delighted to have cast my vote for him.
He has proven he can handle the mass media, has placed our allies on notice we are not The Patsy they have dealt with, has spread consternation among our adversaries and roped in the Democrats led by a bewildered gunslinger named Schumer. Not too shabby a performance .
Meanwhile, the president of the nation 's Bar Association and managing partner of my father's firm's Atlanta Office, comments were sent to me by one of my dearest friends, fellow memo readers and a great lawyer, in his own right: "I am truly sorry your family name has to be associated with this. I feel free to speak out against Judge Robard or any person in power. Judges are not immune from criticism. And good attorneys have no need to "rail." R-----"
What my friend and Linda do not know is one day my father was trying a case in a small southern town and he felt the judge to be prejudiced as well as incompetent. When the Judge told my father, if he continued to pursue the argument to the jury he was trying to make, he would be help in contempt. My father told he he responded: "Your honor you do not know the depth of my contempt for this court. " He was fined $100, I believe, and was made to sit in jail for a few hours. He subsequently apologized to the judge and the case proceeded."
As for Linda's comments, I understand her message and as for my friend, I understand his rebuke as well. I do believe Trump has a right to be petulant and to speak out but I also believe he carries it a bit far, at times, and it costs him politically because he speaks out and tweets whenever he is challenged and that conveys a degree of immaturity and thin skinned reaction.
On the other hand, in defense of Trump, at least, we finally have a president who is unwilling to have his nose rubbed in the ground without speaking out.
You decide. (See 1 and 1a below.)
This also sent by a dear friend and fellow memo reader: "What we are dealing with for at least the next 4 years.
Crocodile tears, what a phony! He is such a hypocrite! Can you remember what he said two years ago
about the same issue? It appears Schumer's hair plugs have punctured his brain....
Advice to the young when dealing with "geezers." (See 2 below.)
===
Even meetings between friends carry risks because everything can become a two edged sword. (See 3 below.)
Tawfik Hamid changed is mind. (See 3a below.)
===
===
This was sent to me by an old and dear friend and fellow memo reader. He received it from the father of the writer. (See 4 below.)
Finally, yesterday I heard a news report that a whistle blower accused an analyst of faking information pertaining to weather changes and his false analysis became the basis for Obama's arguments at the conference on climate change in Paris.
The whistle blower's claim is now being investigated.
I have little faith in the government investigating itself and the whistle blower's claims do not surprise me. I am sure the climate is changing and human and animal behaviour may be associated with the alleged claim but I am also convinced the connection is overblown, overstated and now appears to have been manipulated. Again no surprise.
When zealot ideologues get involved the end results and exaggerated claims often become untrustworthy. Liberals have a habit of embracing anything that supports their ideology regardless of whether it is scientifically factual and credible.
So what's new?
+++
Dick
++++++++++++++++++++++++
1)
ABA President Rails Against Trump Tweets Attacking Judge Who Blocked Ban
Celia Ampel, Daily Business Review
American Bar Association President, Linda Klein, had strong words Monday for President Donald Trump.
"Let me tell you what the most important border is: It's our Constitution and the rule of law it embodies," Klein told the ABA House of Delegates during its midyear meeting in Miami. "We as lawyers are called upon to protect it. Make no mistake: Personal attacks on judges are attacks on our Constitution."
Her remarks came after a weekend of tweets from Trump criticizing a federal judge who blocked his order restricting immigration from seven Muslim-majority countries. U.S. District Judge James Robart in Seattle issued the order Friday.
"The opinion of this so-called judge, which essentially takes law-enforcement away from our country, is ridiculous and will be overturned!" Trump tweeted.
Klein, the senior managing shareholder at Baker, Donelson, Bearman, Caldwell & Berkowitz in Atlanta, came back with a fierce retort.
"There are no 'so-called' judges in America," Klein said. "There are simply judges, fair and impartial. And we must keep it that way."
She reiterated the ABA's role in keeping judges independent and free from political pressure — including pressure "from the president of the United States himself." The association will continue to vet every federal court nominee to support the selection of well-qualified judges, she said.
"Let us be clear: The independence of the judiciary is not up for negotiation," Klein said. "As lawyers, we are trained to be thinkers and leaders. … So lawyers, let's lead. Let's lead by promoting and protecting the rule of law."
Klein also cheered lawyers around the country who flocked to airports where immigrants were detained after Trump signed his executive order.
She said lawyers would insist on the right to due process and legal representation, including hearings from impartial immigration judges, for those who face deportation.
The ABA launched a website, www.immigrationjustice.us, to help lawyers volunteer to support immigrants. The website, set up in just one afternoon, links to relevant law, habeas corpus resources, how-to-help guides and volunteer forms.
Klein told the lawyers gathered at the James L. Knight Center that they were, like the undefeated 1972 Miami Dolphins, in a "defining season."
Lawyers' commitment to the rule of law, due process and access to justice would be key in pushing back against attacks on the Constitution, she said. Klein received a standing ovation from the House of Delegates members with her final call to heed the words of Winston Churchill.
"We are lawyers," she said. "We took an oath, and these are our values. We will never give in. Never, never, never, never."
1a) Nine questions those protesting against Donald Trump’s immigration ban must answer
I wonder whether there might be any long-term effects from shouting ‘racist’, ‘fascist’, ‘misogynist’ all the time? It is possible that it is hard to think while your fingers are in your ears and you are shouting names at everybody. I just put the thought out there.
1a) Nine questions those protesting against Donald Trump’s immigration ban must answer
I wonder whether there might be any long-term effects from shouting ‘racist’, ‘fascist’, ‘misogynist’ all the time? It is possible that it is hard to think while your fingers are in your ears and you are shouting names at everybody. I just put the thought out there.
Certainly the consequences of not thinking much seem to be all around us. Though the Trump administration has decided to put temporary travel restrictions on people from certain countries, the policy seems to have certain internal inconsistencies. For instance, as Gordon Brown said in 2008, 75 per cent of Britain’s security threats originate from Pakistan. As anybody involved in the American security apparatus in recent years could tell you, one of the biggest – and for a period the biggest – security threats to America has been from Pakistani nationals or people of Pakistani heritage with UK passports heading to America via the UK. So if the Trump administration wants to impose blanket bans on any particular group of people, UK citizens of Pakistani heritage would be a better place to start. Another example of the inconsistency is that the country which most of the 9/11 hijackers came from – Saudi Arabia – is not on the list of countries whose nationals now face a temporary hiatus in their ability to travel to the US.
So there appears to be a certain lack of thought on some of the details of this policy. But it is nothing compared to the lack of thought among the policy’s critics. Indeed the opposition to the ban – from Lily Allen down – is striking for the fact that it has clearly thought about none of the central questions which should have preoccupied us all in recent years. Thus the people who are portraying the ban as something which is illegal, fascist etc are – if I may say so – making a huge long-term mistake. If you decide that border restrictions are fascist then you are declaring the views of most people to be fascist, because most people believe in border security. If you believe that restricting people coming in to your country or any other country is bigoted then you are claiming that most of the world is filled with bigots. If you believe absolutely everybody from everywhere should be treated in exactly the same manner (i.e. that immigration controls should everywhere and always be origin-blind) then you are arguing against the security protocols of every border security agency on earth.
In my own view it would help immensely if the people who are lambasting the Trump administration had at least given some thought to the following questions and could go some way to giving answers to such questions as:
1 – Do you accept that America (like many other countries in the world today) has security problems? Do you recognise that despite the giggly charts on social media showing lawnmowers to be more of a threat to American life than terrorism, there are legitimate security concerns that reasonable Americans might hold?
2 – Do you recognise that Islamic terrorism is not a figment of a fevered imagination, but a real thing that exists and which causes a risk to human life in America and many other countries? This isn’t to say that other forms of terrorism don’t exist – they obviously do. But how might you address this one (assuming you can’t immediately solve global peace, poverty, unhappiness, lack of satisfactory sex, masculinity etc)?
3 – If you do recognise the above fact then would you concede that large scale immigration from Islamic countries into the US might bring a larger number of potential challenges than, say, large scale immigration from New Zealand or Iceland?
4 – Is everybody who wants to visit Disney World morally akin to Jews fleeing the Holocaust? If not then what are the differences, and is it always wise to conflate the two?
5 – Would you recognise that Iran is one of the world’s leading state-sponsors of terror, and that, for example, an Iranian-born American citizen in 2011 was caught planning to carry out a terror attack in Washington (against the Saudi Ambassador)? Would you recognise that aggravating though a temporary halt on all Iranian nationals visiting the US might be, and many good people though it will undoubtedly stop, there is a reason that some countries cause a greater security concern than others? Might citizens of a country whose leadership regularly chants ‘Death to America’ present a larger number of questions for border security than, say, citizens of Denmark whose government rarely says the same? What would your vetting policy be to distinguish between different Iranians seeking to enter the US?
6 – Does the whole world have the right to live in America? This is a variant of the same question we Europeans should have been asking for years. If you do not think that the whole world has the right to live in the USA then who should be allowed to live there and who should not? Who might be given priority?
7 – If you believe in giving some people asylum, as I do, who should be given priority? Should asylum be forever? Or should there be a time-limit (such as up until such a time as your country of origin is deemed safe)? How do you deal with people who have been given asylum, whose reason for asylum is over (i.e. their country has returned to peace) but whose children have entered the school system (for instance)?
8 – Is it wrong that the Trump administration says it wishes to favour Christian refugees over Muslim refugees? This is a fascinating and difficult moral question. Many Christians refuse to accept that the plight of Christians – even when they are the specific target of persecution – should be given priority over anyone else. This is a noble example of Christian universalism, but is it wise or moral when you consider the limited numbers that can come in and if you accept that the entire persecuted world cannot arrive in America?
9 – How do you identify the type of Muslims who America should indeed welcome? And how do you distinguish them from the sort of Muslims who the country could well do without? In other words, what would your vetting procedures be? There are some people who have thought about this. But what is your policy?
If you think all of the above questions are simply ‘racist’ or ‘bigoted’ then I suppose the rest of us will just have to accept that we’re going to lose you to four years of shouting on the streets in vagina hats. But the rest of us should try to address these questions. We’re not going to be able to shout them away you know.
++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++
2) Great way to run a Clinic.
++++++++++++++++++++++An old geezer became very bored in retirement and decided to open a medical clinic.
He put a sign up outside that said: "Dr. Geezer's clinic. Get your treatment for $500, if not cured, get back $1,000."
Doctor "Young," who was positive that this old geezer didn't know beans about medicine, thought this would be a great opportunity to get $1,000. So he went to Dr. Geezer's clinic.
Dr. Young: "Dr. Geezer, I have lost all taste in my mouth. Can you please help me ??"
Dr. Geezer: "Nurse, please bring medicine from box 22 and put 3 drops in Dr. Young's mouth."
Dr. Young: Aaagh !! -- "This is Gasoline!"
Dr. Geezer: "Congratulations!
You've got your taste back. That will be $500.
Dr. Young gets annoyed and goes back after a couple of days figuring to recover his money.
Dr. Young: "I have lost my memory, I cannot remember anything."
Dr. Geezer: "Nurse, please bring medicine from box 22 and put 3 drops in the patient's mouth."
Dr. Young: "Oh, no you don't, -- that is Gasoline!"
Dr. Geezer: "Congratulations! You've got your memory back . That will be $500."
Dr. Young (after having lost $1000) leaves angrily and comes back after several more days.
Dr. Young: "My eyesight has become weak --- I can hardly see anything!!!!"
Dr. Geezer: "Well, I don't have any medicine for that so,
" Here's your $1000 back." (giving him a $10 bill)
Dr. Young: "But this is only $10!"
Dr. Geezer: "Congratulations! You got your vision back! That will be $500."
Moral of story -- Just because you're "Young" doesn't mean that you can outsmart an "old Geezer"
3)Trump meets Netanyahu: Where it can go right (and wrong)
| ||
The talk in Washington this week, at least in Israel-obsessive circles, is about how the Bibi-Donald bromance, taking center stage Feb. 15 at a White House summit, is going to be easy like a Sunday morning (even though it’s on a Wednesday).
Never mind that the story about the Israeli prime minister slipping in through the back door in 2010, when Barack Obama was president, was an urban legend. The two leaders definitely had their ups and downs – Obama’s grimace during Netanyahu’s Oval Office Middle East history lecture was real enough.
And now, it’s going to be all good. What did President Trump say last month on Fox News Channel about the US-Israel relationship?
“It got repaired as soon as I took the oath of office,” is what he said.
And what was it Netanyahu said on Inauguration Day?
“Congrats to my friend President Trump,” the prime minister said on Twitter. “Look fwd to working closely with you to make the alliance between Israel&USA stronger than ever.”
Certainly there is greater agreement between Netanyahu and Trump in areas that dogged the Obama-Netanyahu relationship. Both Trump and Netanyahu have said the Iran nuclear deal is a bad one, and Trump’s White House upended US policy last week by saying settlements are not an impediment to peace.
But there are enough areas where agreement is tentative and vague – and enough history of leaders of both countries creating crises by stepping on each others’ vagueness – that plenty could go wrong.
So where are Netanyahu and Trump likely to agree and where could it go wrong? Here are four areas:
Iran
Where they agree: Trump and Netanyahu both think the 2015 deal exchanging sanctions relief for a nuclear rollback gave away too much to Iran. Trump has called it the worst deal he has ever seen — at least until last week, when he called the deal to absorb 1,200 or so refugees from Australia the worst.
Where they may not agree: Trump’s top officials – most prominently James Mattis, the defense secretary – also don’t like the deal, but say dismantling it now that it is in place would do more harm than good. The argument is that the sanctions relief – removing the main means of pressuring Iran — came at the outset of the deal, and that rebuilding the international sanctions regime now is all but impossible. Republicans in Congress, the last redoubt of plans to kill the deal, are shifting toward that point of view as well.
That also, reportedly, is the posture of the Israeli defense establishment – extract what good one can from the deal for the time being.
But Netanyahu has consistently spoken in terms of scrapping the deal, and said not long after Trump was elected that he would present those options to him when they meet.
“There are ways, various ways of undoing it,” Netanyahu said in an interview on “60 Minutes” in December. “I have about five things in my mind.”
Where they could compromise: After Iran tested a ballistic missile last week, Trump’s national security adviser, Michael Flynn, put Iran “on notice” and the Trump administration slapped new non-nuclear sanctions on Iran.
Novel? Not so much – the Obama administration smacked Iran with similar sanctions the last time it tested missiles, a year ago. But the tough talk and the threat of additional sanctions could provide a space for Netanyahu and Trump to appear, for now, on the same page.
After weeks of talking up the undoing of the deal Netanyahu, meeting with British Prime Minister Theresa May in London on Monday, seemed ready instead to emphasize new non-nuclear related sanctions.
“I welcome President Trump’s insistence on new sanctions against Iran,” he said, addressing May. “I think other nations should follow suit, certainly responsible nations, and I’d like to talk to you about how we can ensure Iran’s aggression does not go unanswered.”
Privately, in exchange for tamping down the kill-the-deal talk, Netanyahu might seek reassurances from Trump that Iran is considered the region’s worst actor, said Shoshana Bryen, the senior director of the conservative Jewish Policy Center.
“Netanyahu will want to know how much reassurance can [Trump] give Israel that he sees Iran as the locus of evil in the region,” she said.
Settlements
Where they agree: The Trump administration, releasing a statement last week on Israel’s announcement of new settlement building in the West Bank and eastern Jerusalem, said that while new settlement announcements “may not be helpful in achieving ” peace, they are also not an impediment to peace.
That upends decades of policy, through presidents Democratic and Republican, declaring settlements were indeed an impediment to peace. And it dovetails perfectly with Netanyahu’s overarching argument throughout the Obama presidency: The Palestinian refusal to re-engage in direct talks without preconditions is the main factor obstructing peace.
Where they may not agree: As much the Netanyahu government welcomed the reversal of decades of policy of settlements as an impediment to peace, the thrust of the White House statement was to caution Israel: “The construction of new settlements or the expansion of existing settlements beyond their current borders may not be helpful in achieving that goal.”
Translation: Don’t get ahead of yourselves. No more surprises.
Surprise! On Monday, the Knesset passed a bill that would retroactively legalize settlements on Palestinian-owned land. Sean Spicer, Trump’s spokesman, declined on Tuesday to comment on the measure, except to tell reporters at the daily briefing that “it will be a topic of discussion” when the leaders meet.
Trump is likely getting pushback on settlement expansion from Arab allies in the region like Jordan and Saudi Arabia, said Ilan Goldenberg, the director of the Middle East Security Program at the Center for a New American Security. Russia, too, whom Trump would like to cultivate as an ally, is likely relaying messages that Israeli settlement expansion could undermine efforts to rally other Arabs to help crush the Islamic State terrorist group.
“The expectation going in with Trump was that the Israelis would be free to do whatever they want,” said Goldenberg, who helped lead the State Department team in the last round of Israeli-Palestinian peace talks in Obama’s second term. “That could create some constraints against giving the Israelis carte blanche.”
Where they could compromise: Netanyahu, still committed to the two-state solution, is said not to be overly thrilled with the legislation. If there is one thing he misses about Obama, it’s using him as a foil to put the brakes on the ambitions of the settlement movement. Being able to say he was “forced” by Washington to limit settlement building could be just what Netanyahu wants.
Syria
Where they agree: Trump sees Syria as a theater to crush the Islamic State. Israel is all for crushing the Islamic State.
Where they may disagree: This could be the knottiest problem afflicting Trump-Netanyahu comity. Trump wants to work with Russia in crushing the Islamic State. Russia is formally allied with the Assad regime in Syria, which means it is informally allied with Israel’s deadliest enemy, Iran, and with Iran’s Lebanese proxy. The last thing Israel wants is Iran and Hezbollah looming over its northern border.
Where they could compromise: Netanyahu will likely make the case to Trump that any lasting deal in Syria’s southwest – bordering the Golan Heights – needs to keep Iran and Hezbollah far away. That could mean an arrangement in which moderate opposition forces, backed by the United States and Jordan, maintain control – although that would be a hard sell to the Russians, who have been pounding moderates.
The other compromise – and less to Israel’s liking – would be to have Assad forces, and only Assad forces, move into the region.
Israel once favored the Assads as the best of the worst: a dangerous enemy, but at least able to keep the northern border quiet. The civil war, and Bashar Assad becoming beholden to Iran and Hezbollah, have shattered that outlook. Now those three actors – Assad, Iran and Hezbollah – are inextricably intertwined in Israel’s view, said Daniel Shapiro, until last month the US ambassador to Israel.
“Assad has talked about retaking all of Syria,” he said. “Anywhere that happens, you have to believe that Hezbollah and Iran gain some kind of strategic advantage.”
The Holocaust
Where they agree: Um.
Where they may disagree: Trump’s International Holocaust Remembrance Day statement omitted the salient fact that the victims of the Holocaust were Jewish. Netanyahu is all about protecting Jews. He told Tal Shalev, a journalist for Walla accompanying him to London, “I think that question will be addressed fully during the visit [to Washington] and will be answered fully.”
Where they may compromise: There’s no compromise on who the victims of the Holocaust were – and Trump’s team, if anything, is doubling down on its claim that the statement was appropriate and its critics misguided (or “pathetic” and “asinine,” as Trump aides variously said).
A way out, though, may be Netanyahu not lecturing Trump on history, as he did six years ago with Obama, but gently explaining why getting the history right is in the US interest, said Bryen.
“If you say, ‘Donald you screwed it up,’ what have you accomplished?” she asked. “If you share some thoughts about how [omitting Jews from mentions of the Holocaust] impacts American Jews, how it impacts Israel – you have a reason for raising it.”Mincha goldstein
Tawfik started out early in life in EGypt as an extremist in training for suicide missions. At some point, he realized that he was going down the wrong path and began to understand that he was being indocrinated to be something he did not want to be. He fled Egypt and came to the USA some 25 - 30 years ago. He is a voice in the wilderness warning of the danger of Radical Islam and speaks out at every opportunity. His article below needs to be passed around.
 | |
|
| ||||||||||||||
++++++++++++++++++++++++++++
4)I got this from a friend. Thought you might enjoy some good news.
He said the difference is nothing short of amazing. It is almost as though you can feel it in the air, in the pace of people strides, in the expressions on their faces. But beyond that, the change in process has been immediate. Within 48 hours several action orders that had been languishing for up to six months between State, NSC, and the White House, were approved and executed. Over the last 8 years ( our son has been there for about 15 years) and particularly, the last 3 to 4, the atmosphere has been stifling. Every little thing had to be vetted by dozens of 30-year old State Department lawyers (with no military experience) before it even got up the chain, effectively neutering the senior officers and reducing effectiveness to near zero. This past week, he took something to General Dunford, our Chairman of the Joint Chiefs of Staff, and within minutes it was approved by the Sec. of Def, General Mattis (both Marines, by the way) and green lighted.
Most of you know that our son works in a leadership position within US Special Operations, specializing in counter-terrorism, at the Pentagon. I spoke with him last night to get his view of how the first week of the Trump administration was perceived there. It was a short conversation but very informative.
There is new energy flowing through the whole building. There is a new sense of purpose, a new resolve that is palpable. A cloud has been lifted.
Say what you will about our new president, and there certainly is a lot ( pro and con) that could be and is being said, the folks at the pentagon are walking with a new skip in their step
+++++++++++++++++++
No comments:
Post a Comment