https://www.youtube.com/watch?
+++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++
Israelis lives in a region that forces them to see the world as it is not as liberals and the mass media "pathetics" would wish it to be.
Meanwhile, as I suggested in a previous memo the mass media went ga-ga over Fat Boy's sister. The op ed from the WSJ needs no embellishment from me. It speaks for itself but it is a sad commentary on the "pathetics" who write for our mass media. (See 1 and 1a below.)
Meanwhile, the new attack on Trump from the"pathetics" blame Trump for covering up the Democrat's FISA memo response to Nunes'. It will eventually be released after it is has been cleaned of items that should not be released but were loaded allowing Schiff to rant and rave.
Liberals and the mass media "pathetics" do not want you to trust logic and your own common sense. Only trust what they write. This is the message of Orwell's 1984.
Sadly enough one of the uses of technology today is it's use to thwart free speech. Twitter, Google are the tip of the technology ice berg despite their denials. (See 1b below.)
+++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++
One of the problems Trump may face is stimulating the economy at a time when The Fed is unwinding from the previous stimulus.
By raising interest rates which will drive inflation upward and add to this the significant drop in unemployment and increased federal spending we could overheat. Time will tell. (See 2 below.)
++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++
Dick
+++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++
1)Conflict with Iran is here
In the real world, very much like a movie or a good play, the gun we see in the first act will go off in the final act. In this vein, Iran's presence on Israel's northern border – in the form of its soldiers and aircraft on Syrian soil, along with the thousands of Shiite volunteers it has deployed on the Syrian Golan Heights – could, as we have just witnessed, be unleashed against Israel.
Those who cautioned that Israel's actions – namely its air campaign against Hezbollah targets in Syrian territory – were pushing the region to the brink of an unnecessary conflict with Iran and Hezbollah, were wrong. The conflict is already here, and the initiator is in fact Iran.
This still isn't all-out war, which nobody wants, rather another step, significant and severe, on the chess board of Israel's battle with Iran.
The crux of this battle is the question of Iran's presence in Syria in the aftermath of the civil war there, and Tehran's efforts to build precision-missile factories in Lebanon. Israel has said this is a red line, and will not allow it.
Israel's immediate and aggressive response to Iran's belligerence on Saturday signals its determination not to repeat past mistakes of issuing hollow threats. To be sure, Iran and Hezbollah will only be careful not to cross Israel's red lines if they believe it is resolved to defending them.
Will Saturday's incident lead to war? Not necessarily. Throughout the seven years of civil war in Syria, Israel capably managed its conflict with Iran on a low flame. A month does not go by without a report of another attack, attributed to Israel's air force, against Iranian, Hezbollah, or regime targets in Syria. This is not the first time anti-aircraft missiles were fired by Syria.
Now is the time to test the effectiveness of these red lines and see whether Iran wants to drag the region into a war; despite the fact that at least outwardly Tehran and certainly Russia are not interested in such a development.
Eyal Zisser is a lecturer in the Middle East History Department at Tel Aviv University.
1a)The Pyongyang Olympics
The Western media discover the hidden charms of North Korea
By The Editorial Board
“ Kim Jong Un’s sister is stealing the show at the Winter Olympics,” said an actual headline on CNN Saturday. The story was an encomium to the heretofore undetected charms of North Korea’s first sister, who is the North’s lead emissary to the games.
“With a smile, a handshake and a warm message in South Korea’s presidential guest book, Kim Yo Jong has struck a chord with the public just one day into the PyeongChang Games,” said the story. “Seen by some as her brother’s answer to American first daughter Ivanka Trump, Kim, 30, is not only a powerful member of Kim Jong Un’s kitchen cabinet but also a foil to the perception of North Korea as antiquated and militaristic.”
Ah, the North Korean Ivanka. What’s she wearing—Armani Privé? How does she keep that youthful, glowing complexion on a starvation diet?
The Western media also went ga-ga for the North Korean cheerleaders waving flags in sync at a hockey game. A tweet from @NBCOlympics showed a video of the red-dressed Reds with the caption, “this is so satisfying to watch.” Yes, and if any of them gets out of line, her family could be sent for an extended stay at one of the exquisitely outfitted villas at a work camp, perhaps with a lovely mountain view.
But back to the charming Kim Yo Jong, whose smile was contrasted with the white male visage of Vice President Mike Pence, who led the U.S. delegation. Philip Bump, a Washington Post reporter, tweeted a photo with Ms. Kim looking from behind at Mr. Pence with the caption, “Kim Jong Un’s sister with deadly side-eye at Pence.” You go, girl.
Mr. Bump has since pulled the tweet, but his willingness to favorably contrast a member of a despotic family clan with an American Vice President was typical of the weekend’s Olympics coverage.
For the record, Ms. Kim’s brother ordered the murder of their half-brother last year using the VX nerve agent at the Kuala Lumpur airport. He then held Malaysian diplomats hostage until Malaysia turned over Pyongyang’s agents who plotted the assassination. In 2013 he killed his uncle with antiaircraft fire.
The media’s dictatorship indulgence might not matter if it didn’t seem to be having diplomatic consequences for the U.S.-South Korean alliance. South Korean President Moon Jae-in treated Ms. Kim like a visiting princess, and she invited him to visit Pyongyang, which the global press corps treated as a genuine breakthrough for peace.
Never mind that Pyongyang staged a military parade the day before the Olympics opened, showcasing a new ballistic missile. Or that the North still insists it will never negotiate over nuclear weapons or the missiles it now launches over Japan.
Mr. Moon deserves much of the blame for this week’s charade. He set the tone by inviting Ms. Kim and North Korean head of state Kim Yong Nam to sit with him at the opening ceremony. He then invited them to the presidential mansion the following day, opening the door to the summit invitation.
Mr. Moon didn’t immediately accept. But the offer is an attempt to drive a wedge between the U.S. and South Korea and secure concessions from Mr. Moon, who suspended sanctions and paid the North’s expenses to secure its participation in the Olympics. The invitation opens the door for more propaganda blaming the U.S. for tensions created by the Kims.
The one leader who behaved with dignity this weekend is Mr. Pence. He was put in the awkward position of following what has been the joint U.S.-South Korean policy that the North must stop its nuclear program before a rapprochement can happen.
While Mr. Moon was toasting Ms. Kim, Mr. Pence met with North Korean defectors. But that meeting received less coverage than North Korea’s cheerleading squad. Mr. Pence stood with the victims of the Kim regime, even as the North pressures Mr. Moon to return defectors to almost certain death.
1b) Release the FISA Documents
1b) Release the FISA Documents
The public deserves to see the full record on the FBI wiretap request.
By The Editorial Board
President Trump Friday refused to declassify the Democratic memo on the Federal Bureau of Investigation and the Foreign Intelligence Surveillance Court (FISA), sending it back for negotiation with the Justice Department over intelligence sources and methods. This intelligence memo feud has become a frustrating political back and forth that needs to be trumped with more transparency.
Mr. Trump claimed in a tweet on Saturday that Democrats laid a trap with their 10-page memo, deliberately adding classified material that they knew “would have to be heavily redacted, whereupon they would blame the White House for lack of transparency.” That may be true, but it worked. Senate Democratic leader Chuck Schumer quickly sent out a statement, “what is he hiding?”
Our sources say the Democratic memo—six pages longer than the GOP version released a week ago—has three main themes. The first argues for the credibility of Christopher Steele, the former British spy who compiled the dossier that the FBI used as the bulk of its justification for a wiretap on Trump campaign adviser Carter Page. The second is that the FBI had good reason to surveil Mr. Page, and third is that the GOP memo is partisan.
None of this sounds like earth-shattering news since Democrats and their media echo chamber have been saying it for days. But keeping the memo classified plays into the Democratic narrative because the public can’t see the evidence behind their public claims. Let’s see what they’ve got.
The better remedy for these competing claims is to declassify all of the documents that House Intelligence Committee Members and staff used to compile the memos. This includes the full FBI application for a wiretap order from the FISA court—the original application and the three extensions. This would let the public see the full record and judge who is closer to the truth.
The FBI and Justice will claim this compromises intelligence sources and methods, but that’s what they said about the original GOP memo. It did not. They said the same about a letter from Senators Chuck Grassley and Lindsey Graham concerning Mr. Steele’s credibility. That also didn’t spill any essential secrets, though it did provide crucial information to help the public understand what happened.
Anything that did betray U.S. intelligence-gathering sources could be redacted, though the FBI has to be checked for trying to redact information that is merely embarrassing to the FBI, not damaging to national security.
The questions surrounding the legitimacy of a U.S. presidential election and potential abuse by the FBI are too important to public trust to keep mired in partisan claims based on a hidden public record. If that record vindicates Mr. Trump, as he claims, then he has further incentive to get everything out. Americans can handle the truth, and they deserve to see it.
++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++
2) An Honest Federal Budget Would Help Control Spending and Debt
For most of American history, balancing fiscal trade-offs was more straightforward. From 1789 until the 1960s, substantial accumulations of public debt were byproducts of wartime. Postwar spending restraint and economic growth reduced the debt significantly as a percentage of gross domestic product. Such outcomes reflected an agreement across party lines that ordinary operations of government were to be funded by balanced budgets. Ordinary operations of government included “public goods” like defense, civil service, and national infrastructure. During peacetime, debt was used only to finance major investments in the nation’s expansion.
2) An Honest Federal Budget Would Help Control Spending and Debt
Lawmakers argue over policies, but no one wants to be held accountable for overall priorities.
The debates over taxes, spending, infrastructure and health-care financing center on policy arguments. They pay too little attention to the big picture—a framework for budget choices, how government makes those choices, and who is accountable for them. The political process avoids those questions not because they are insignificant but because they are difficult, and because no institutional mechanism mandates their debate.
The debates over taxes, spending, infrastructure and health-care financing center on policy arguments. They pay too little attention to the big picture—a framework for budget choices, how government makes those choices, and who is accountable for them. The political process avoids those questions not because they are insignificant but because they are difficult, and because no institutional mechanism mandates their debate.
The ratio of federal debt held by the public to GDP has skyrocketed, from 26% in 1970 to 75% in 2017. Our present-day arguments over tax burdens notwithstanding, this shift reflects changes in spending. And spending has shifted away from traditional public goods toward private benefits in the form of transfer payments like Social Security and Medicare, while no mechanism forces tax changes to fund current and projected spending.
This observation is not meant to suggest simply that “spending is too high.” Rather, the issue is one of accountability for spending choices. Historically, spending on war or territorial expansion was conceptualized as “capital” spending—benefiting current and future generations, who shared the costs. Regular operations were borne by the people alive at the time. Such an approach does not necessarily mean lower spending, but it does require current taxpayers, not future ones, to pick up the bill.
Our present budget institutions are not up to the task. While vigorous debates occur over individual policies, no real constraints operate on the budget in toto. Attempts to do so in recent years have failed.
The first step toward a remedy is the provision of information to the public about the state of public finances, the future federal debt relative to GDP, and the economic impact of that debt. But this change by itself is likely insufficient for ensuring that today’s taxpayers fund today’s services and transfer payments. To accomplish this shift requires a more rules-based approach. In recent decades, discussion of this idea in the U.S. has focused on forms of a balanced-budget amendment to the Constitution.
Such constraints, of course, raise legitimate concerns about needs for spending in extenuating circumstances beyond regular operations and exacerbating business cycles. But that doesn’t mean a reasonable rule cannot be formulated. One could define a budget rule as a spending limit, rather than a balanced-budget limitation.
The Hoover Institution’s Tim Kane and I have offered one idea—that each year’s total federal spending be limited to the average annual inflation-adjusted revenue of the previous seven years. This formulation attenuates problems posed by inflation and the business cycle. Temporary spending increases could be approved by legislative supermajority votes, with increasing supermajorities required for longer departures from the rule. Such departures would be up to the Congress at the time, as opposed to predefined categories.
A focus on spending necessarily confronts transfer payments, which loom large in current and future budgets. A welfare state financed by current taxpayers could well be smaller than the present one. But that is not an automatic consequence of a spending rule. Voters may like higher spending enough to agree to higher taxes. If, for example, an aging society is deemed to warrant more spending going forward, voters as taxpayers can agree to finance it. Put this way, a spending rule is not a partisan restraint on government. While advocates on the left for higher transfer payments will feel the pinch of a spending rule, so too will tax cutters on the right feel the pinch of explaining spending cuts as a consequence.
The fights over the budget deal and the contentious scramble for revenue to finance tax cuts, all while problems of long-run fiscal sustainability loom large, likely signal a last gasp of our current approach to budgeting. Adding to a discussion of individual policies a deeper conversation about budget institutions is important if we are to balance spending desires with their funding.
Mr. Hubbard, dean of Columbia Business School, was chairman of the U.S. Council of Economic Advisers under President George W. Bush.
++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++
