;
Look what they have developed in Israel. Forget everything you
I have finally finished John Meacham's biography of President Jackson entitled: "American Lion."
+++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++
Jackson saved the union. He saw the president's commitment was not to Congress but to the people. Truman was a devoted student of Jackson and framed Jackson's service in these words: "He wanted sincerely to look after the little fellow who had no pull."
Jackson's tenure was during tumultuous times. He was hated, had many enemies and made many decisions which were bold but angered his opponents. Much that he did and the manner in which he went about it set a pattern for the modern president.
Certainly Obama does not measure up to Jackson. GW does in some respects. Truman for sure as did FDR. Reagan was not Jacksonian but he loved this country and had confidence in his viewpoint. Kennedy did not live long enough to be compared to anyone in my view, Nixon, Johnson and Carter did not measure up to Jackson though, legislatively speaking, Johnson was a power house. Bush 41 was a decent man of character and loved this country but politically fell short of Jackson's style as did Ford, another decent man. Eisenhower was sort of unique in many ways and though he was a good president, and seems to get better as the years pass, he was not a Jackson type.
Clinton will be remembered as a better than average president but his lack of character and his unwillingness to be forceful brings him up short in comparison to America's Lion.
The jury is still out on Trump. He is being confronted by many tornadic issues and it remains to be seen whether he will be tough and measure up beyond tweets and words. His management style is sloppy compared to Jackson's, his love of country, I believe, is equally sincere but his life of comfort has shaped him in ways totally unlike those of Jackson. Trump remains, and probably always will, in a class by himself but that does not mean he will not eventually be effective. Just too early to tell.
I believe if he were a deeper reader and thinker that would help him get through the thorny issues that confront him.
"American Lion" is a worthy read for those who do not appreciate Jackson's impact on our nation and shaping of today's presidency.
++++++++++++++++++++++++++++
Talk about "art of the deal." Trump pulled off a whopper. (See 1 below.)
++++++++++++++++++++++++
What does Bill Clinton have in common with The Titanic. (See 2 below.)
+++++++++++++++++++++++
Some commentary regarding N Korea. (See 3 below.)
++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++
Dick
++++++++++++++++++++++
1)
President Donald Trump Announces Sale of California to Mexico – The
Art of The Deal
By Les Roediger
WASHINGTON (AP) – at 12:15pm today President Trump disclosed that he
has reached an agreement with Enrique Peña Nieto, President of Mexico,
which provides for the sale of substantially all of the State of California to the
country of Mexico. President Trump noted that this deal, which he claims “is his
YUGEst real estate deal ever” is a win-win for everyone involved.
The two billionaires, who have clashed in the past, set aside their differences
and negotiated the deal in which Mexico will pay for the wall, in exchange for
the State of California.
One of the benefits Trump says he will highlight, during a prime time
address from the oval office later this week, will include using the proceeds
received by the US from Mexico to 1) pay for the wall (fulfilling yet another
campaign promise), a wall which will now include the length of the eastern
border of California, 2) fund all the infrastructure spending in the remaining
49 states and 3) pay to relocate the 67 remaining Republicans that currently
reside in California. Detailed info can be found clicking the Mexifornia image
below…
on US social programs will allow those social programs to be cash positive in less than 3 years.
Mexican President Nieto announced that he has already introduced a bill to the Mexican Congress asking to change the name of the acquisition to Mexifornia.
Other benefits President Trump intends to discuss during this evening’s prime time address include:
• Mexifornia will now be able to act as a sanctuary state within Mexico noting that there is much more room for the refugees who will find the climate in the former State of California more desirable than the climate in US cities such as NYC, Detroit or Chicago.
• The elimination of the existing boarder between Mexico and California will allow drugs to flow more freely between Mexico and the users in Hollywood. Drug tunnel diggers at the Tijuana border will now be able to use their skills to dig tunnels under Los Angeles to help ease congestion in that city and allow rioters to move about the city’s universities more freely
• The U.S. taxpayer will no longer be on the hook for any future disaster relief required once the next megaquake hits California.
The space in the Capitol and other DC buildings vacated by representatives of California will be fumigated and turned into “time-out rooms” for the press as well as Liberty Centers where US citizens can meet with their congressmen to discuss the pursuit of economic freedom.
Nancy P. Lousy released a statement stating that she looks forward to making the Mexican President’s life miserable and prefers the year round weather in Mexico City to that of DC. Her office has already announced a schedule of fund raising activities for what is believed to be an upcoming campaign to run for President of Mexico.
Papers released along with Trump’s statement reveal that a newly incorporated real estate company, Pmurt, Inc., which was intimately involved in the deal discussions, will receive a broker fee of $25 billion on the California sale. An anonymous Pmurt, Inc. representative has revealed that the profits on the deal are YUGE and will be used to purchase, develop and convert all abandoned US Federal facilities in California into special high end retreats and resorts which will assist California residents with managing their euphoria and transition into the nanny state they have so long desired to be.
The exact northern border of the new Mexifornia is still under negotiation. Apparently the White House is concerned that certain members of congress may be unwilling to give up California’s wine country and are suggesting that the northern border align with the north end of the Golden Gate Bridge but that Marin County will happily be ceded to Mexico.
Mexifornia residents will be issued special blue cards to cross the border into the US so that the total number of Mexifornia Liberals entering the US can be tracked and at any point in time not exceed predetermined levels. Residents that remain in Mexifornia after the effective date of the sale will not be allowed to seek refugee status in the US in the future.
Mexican President Nieto stated he is thrilled with the deal and is looking forward to declaring Spanish the national language for his newly acquired territory and opening SSL (Spanish as a Second Language) schools throughout Mexifornia. He also noted that funding for the transaction would come from the Mexican drug cartels, which have agreed to provide low interest loans to Mexico so long as they are allowed to move their cash out of Switzerland and the Cayman Islands back into Mexico tax free. He also said he considers the fact that a Disney park will now be located within his country an added bonus.
White House representatives refused to confirm rumors that a similar deal was in the works for the sale of Northeastern states from NY through Maine, to Canada.
President Trump wrapped up his statement stating, “this deal is YUGE and will help Make America, albeit a little smaller, Great Again”.
Students at a local school were assigned to read 2 books, 'Titanic' and 'My Life' by Bill Clinton.
One student turned in the following book report, with the proposition that they were nearly identical stories! His cool professor gave him an A+ for this report. Titanic: Cost - $29.99 Clinton : Cost - $29.99 Titanic: Over 3 hours to read Clinton : Over 3 hours to read Titanic: The story of Jack and Rose, their forbidden love,
and subsequent catastrophe.
Clinton : The story of Bill and Monica, their forbidden love,
and subsequent catastrophe.
Titanic: Jack is a starving artist. Clinton : Bill is a bullshit artist. Titanic: In one scene, Jack enjoys a good cigar. Clinton : Ditto for Bill
Titanic: During the ordeal, Rose's dress gets ruined.
Clinton : Ditto for Monica. Titanic: Jack teaches Rose to spit. Clinton : Let's not go there. Titanic: Rose gets to keep her jewellery. Clinton : Monica is forced to return her gifts. Titanic: Rose remembers Jack for the rest of her life. Clinton : Clinton doesn't remember anything.. Titanic: Rose goes down on a vessel full of seamen. Clinton : Monica.. Ooh, let's not go there, either. Titanic: Jack surrenders to an icy death. Clinton : Bill goes home to Hillary - basically the same
thing.
++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++
3)North Korea’s Recent History of Random, Sudden,
Violent Provocations
By Jim Geraghty One aspect of the threat from North Korea that doesn’t get addressed seriously enough
is the regime is either unable or unwilling to accurately assess the risks of its actions. It’s as if the entire
Pyongyang government has no sense of what kind of provocation is so serious that its foes will retaliate
with force.
Put aside the regime’s blustery threats; look at what the North Korean government and its military
actually does:
November 10, 2009: A North Korean navy patrol boat crosses into South Korean territorial waters,
ignores radio warnings and warning shots from South Korean naval units, and opens fire on a South
Korean patrol boat. The two boats exchange fire, take light damage, and the North Korean boat returns to
its national waters. Similar exchanges of fire between naval vessels occurred in 1999 and 2002, with more significant casualties.
March 26, 2010: A North Korean “midget submarine” fired a torpedo and sunk the South Korean Naval
corvette Cheonan, killing 46 sailors and wounding 56 more. North Korea denied responsibility but South
Korea and its allies have no doubt they committed the attack.
November 23, 2010: North Korean forces fired around 170 artillery shells and rockets at Yeonpyeong
Island in South Korea, hitting both military and civilian targets. The attack left four South Koreans dead
and 19 injured. South Korean forces returned fire.
October 19, 2014: “North and South Korean soldiers exchanged gunfire when the North’s soldiers
approached the military border and did not retreat after the South fired warning shots.”
August 10, 2015: “North Korean soldiers sneaked across the heavily guarded border with South Korea
and planted land mines near one of the South’s military guard posts, and two southern soldiers were
maimed after stepping on them.”
In other words, every once in a while, North Korea just goes out and tries to kill some South Koreans
without warning because it wants to send a message. Sometimes they succeed, sometimes they don’t. So
far, South Korea is willing to suffer those casualties and respond proportionally, managing not to escalate
a particular clash into a second Korean War. If the North Koreans sank a U.S. Navy ship, shelled U.S.
troops in South Korea, or made some other direct attack, how would we respond? Would it be
proportional to North Korea’s attack, or would there be an attempt to deter further attacks by
demonstrating overwhelming force? More importantly, would North Korea perceive our response as the
opening salvo in an invasion? These are big questions under any U.S. president, but Donald Trump is
another giant X factor. How does Trump respond to a fast-moving crisis with many lives at stake?
There’s another more recent event worth keeping in mind as well:
February 13, 2017: At the Kuala Lumpur International Airport in Malaysia, two women believed to be
North Korean agents wipe a substance in the face of Kim Jong Nam, the estranged half-brother of North
Korean leader Kim Jong Un. He dies shortly after; the substance is later found to be VX nerve agent,
“believed to be the most toxic known nerve agent and is banned globally except for research.”
There are a lot of ways to kill somebody; the North Korean regime used a particularly dangerous method
in an extremely busy public location. It’s almost as if they’re trying to pick the most reckless and escalating means of achieving their goal as possible. What if North Korea’s regime tried something like that in LAX,
LaGuardia, or Dulles?
Right now, a lot of people are probably thinking, “eh, they would never do that” – except that no one
foresaw the attack on the Cheonan or Yeonpyeong Island coming, either. North Korea just commits some
random, unprovoked act of aggression every once in a while, seemingly confident that they won’t trigger
an all-out war in the process.
Elsewhere, our David French imagines how a conventional, non-nuclear war in Korea could unfold, and
unfold badly:
There were so many plans – plans upon plans – for dealing with this moment, but no one really reckoned
with the human factor. No one could quite foresee how a modern, prosperous nation would react to an
instant apocalypse. After generations of the long peace, the world had forgotten total war. We weren’t
prepared, and the shock of the moment meant that the plans failed. For crucial hours, for crucial days,
until the allies adjusted to the new reality, North Korea had the advantage.
Barring some last-minute dramatic intervention from China, it appears the United States has to choose
among three bad options: A) Learn to live with a nuclear-armed North Korea that can strike the United
States with Inter-Continental Ballistic Missiles; B) a conventional war sooner to eliminate the threat, that
will involve massive casualties on the Korean peninsula and possibly elsewhere; or C) a nuclear exchange with North Korea sometime in the future.
It’s probably going to be option A. Yesterday, Jonah recalled a debate about North Korea from the mid-
1990s, and pointed out how the natural dynamics of American politics create incentives to continue
“diplomatic outreach” even when it is clear no agreement is possible: “There will always be loud and
large constituencies insisting there is more time to talk. There will always be strong forces encouraging
leaders to kick-the-can to some future administration. If you don’t decide before you enter negotiations
what you want from negotiations, all you are doing is negotiating for more negotiations while your
opponent is negotiating for more time in pursuit of a concrete goal. In the meantime, their position
becomes stronger and ours weaker, which means future negotiations are less likely to yield more
desirable outcomes.”
You’re already hearing recommendations that the same diplomatic outreach attempted with Cuba and
Iran be applied to North Korea, and that the United States should “formally end the Korean War with a
peace treaty and normalize relations – even if the North remains a nuclear power.”
I don’t know about you, but these promises and predictions sound familiar:
With normalization of relations, the United States will be in a better position to deal with North Korea on
any issue of mutual concern. Human rights organizations will have the opportunity to address concerns
in North Korea directly, rather than observing from the outside. Moreover, U.S. companies and brands
could also conceivably move into North Korea. Direct economic interactions between the United States
and North Korea might bring about changes that the United States has long pressed for but could not
achieve.
But as laid out yesterday, back in the mid-1990s, the United States already gave the North Koreans $6
billion in new reactors and other aid in exchange for promises, promises that the regime had no intention
of keeping.
In fact, here comes Obama’s former national security advisor, Susan Rice, today: “History shows that we
can, if we must, tolerate nuclear weapons in North Korea – the same way we tolerated the far greater
threat of thousands of Soviet nuclear weapons during the Cold War. It will require being pragmatic.”
The proposal for diplomatic outreach assumes that the North Korean regime is rational and is willing to
end its long history of violent provocations, shady arms deals, and other hostile behavior. Does this look
like a regime that can change its character that fundamentally?
Isn’t ‘Better Than the Left’ a Pretty Low Bar to Clear for a Republican?
In the pages of NRO, Conrad Black made another effort at persuading the NeverTrump crowd to jump on
the bandwagon, and unsurprisingly, many of Trump’s critics on the Right are not persuaded. But there’s one point of Black’s article that deserves more attention:
The president’s course is clear: Speak and tweet more carefully, as he is generally doing; show more
focus; shut down the nonsense and indiscretions in the White House; prepare an unstoppable tax bill;
take a strong line in North Korea (after three successive administrations have failed and dropped this
horrible mess into his lap); denounce the Mueller investigation for the outrage that it is; do the necessary
to set another special counsel on the backs of the Clintons, Lynch, Comey, Wasserman Schultz, and the
unmaskers and leakers (the Democrats deserve the heat more than Trump does and this one-way
shooting gallery must end); and, if Rosenstein allows Mueller to go fishing, challenge it in the courts.
I concur with much of this, particularly, “Speak and tweet more carefully; show more focus.” I don’t
mind Trump’s “fire and fury” comment about North Korea; there’s something deeply satisfying about watching North Korea’s propagandists get a taste of their own rhetoric served back to them. I just wish he had bothered to
review his comments with his own national security team ahead of time instead of springing it on them
without warning. Too often, the president still acts like he’s fighting about a real estate deal by offering
colorful quotes to the New York Post.
Black concludes, “The choice, for sane conservatives, is Trump or national disaster.” Maybe you saw
Election Day 2016 as that strict binary choice. But we’re past Election Day. It’s time to stop measuring
Trump merely as an alternative to Hillary and to start measuring him on his own merits. So far, he’s better
on policy than I expected – particularly in improving care for veterans — but worse on temperament
than I feared. A bunch of grumbling conservatives are a much smaller problem for this administration
than the president’s habitual erratic impulsiveness.
ADDENDA: Ha! “Jon Ossoff will be leading a panel discussion at Netroots on Saturday about winning
the 2018 midterm elections.” Another case of “those who can, do; those who can’t, teach,” huh?
+++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++
|
No comments:
Post a Comment