Happy Valentine:https://www.jibjab.com/view/
Meanwhile, nothing surprises me. Fight for me so I can prevent you from voting for your candidate.
https://www.washingtontimes.
Cape Town tries slaking its thirst and water needs with hate. Consequently, everything is about to go totally dry.
We know this to be a fact because Landings friends have parents living there and they came here to bathe,use the bathroom etc. (See 1 and 1a below.)
++++++++++++++++++++
Once again, thank you Obama and France. (See 2 and 2a below.)
+++++++++++++++++++++++++++
Welcome to England. (See 3 below.)
+++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++
Mass Media Behaves Abnormally. Perhaps for abnormal times we need a non-traditional president. You decide. (See 4 and 4a below.)
Meanwhile, Abnormal Trump has forced the DACA Issue to possibly result in something very abnormal - Republicans/Trump may force Democrats to end their hypocrisy. (See 4b below.)
+++++++++++++++++++++++++++++
An Un-PC Aussie General Cosgrove responds. (See 5 below.)
It is time to fight fire with fire. Maybe Cosgrove should replace Tillerson. (See 5a below.)
+++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++
Was someone seeking to frag Gen Kelly for taking a tough stance and imposing discipline in a formerly out of control White House?
I would put nothing past anyone in the nation's power-house. Call me cynical if you wish. You decide. (See 6 below.)
++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++
Obama ruled more as a dictator with a cell phone and pen than president. Was he trying to appease Putin by allowing an uranium deal?
We also know Obama had a racial bias as evidence by many of the rules and regulations he imposed, his attitude towards the Military and Police Departments and his willingness to jump the gun as evidence by his accusation regarding a black Harvard Professor's arrest by a white campus policeman among other things. See 7 and 7a below.)
+++++++++++++++++++++++++
So who is the beautiful monster the mass media fawned over while insulting/attacking V.P Pense.? (See 8 below.)
++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++
Dick
++++++++++++++++++++++++++
1)
The Cape Town Water Crisis and Hating Israel
Demonstrating the irrationality of hatred, Cape Town rejected Israel’s offer to help forestall their crisis.
By Rabbi Blech
Perhaps the most amazing thing about anti-Semitism and the world’s hatred of Israel is illustrated by Cape Town’s frightening water crisis.
Cape Town is one of the most beautiful cities in the world. Until just recently it was also one of the most popular tourist destinations in South Africa, responsible for almost 10 percent of the country’s $33 billion economic output.
But the city is now facing a crisis of unimaginable proportion. The sources of water have dried up and the water taps will soon have to be shut off completely. Current estimates put that day – now called “Day Zero” – sometime in mid-April.
As of now, there is water rationing previously unheard-of in modern civilized cities. People are urged not to flush toilets, to shower and bathe infrequently with minimal water, and walking around with unwashed hair is considered a sign of national patriotism. The government admits they are facing a probable total collapse of their economy, their infrastructure, and their way of life
As soon as Israel became aware of Cape Town’s water problem, it volunteered assistance, making clear their ability and willingness to help. They were rebuffed.
Cape Town has been aware of this threat for some time – and they also had an easily accessible solution. Israel is a country which achieved the scientific know-how to make its desert bloom, its minimal water supply to suffice for its needs, and the desalination of seawater for everyday purposes a reality. Israel has learned how to recycle about 85 percent of its water and has achieved what many considered impossible: making water readily accessible to all of its inhabitants. As soon as Israel became aware of Cape Town’s water problem, without any hesitancy it volunteered assistance, making clear their ability and willingness to help.
Former Israeli Ambassador to South Africa Arthur Lenk, current Ambassador Lior Keinan, and Israel’s economic attaches to South Africa all made repeated overtures to the relevant bodies to assist with the Cape Town water crisis. Scientists were prepared to share their knowledge. Volunteers were ready to come to implement them. Organizations were ready to help in the planning and even in the financing for what was required to prevent Day Zero from becoming a reality.
But the governing body of Cape Town sides with the Palestinians. That makes Israelis the enemy. And that allowed hatred to trump sanity and enmity to prefer calamity over offered salvation.
Harry Emerson Fosdick put it well when he famously said, “Hating people is like burning down your own house to get rid of a rat.”
In the early part of 2016, when it already became clear that parts of South Africa would be facing one of the most severe droughts in its history, an important conference was called to make plans for the initiation and implementation of specific programs to prevent catastrophe. Listed on the program as one of the delegates was Israel’s ambassador to South Africa, Arthur Lenk, who had already spent considerable effort in educating and assisting the region wherever possible. No sooner did this become public than Prof Lorenzo Fioramonti of the University of Pretoria, withdrew his participation. That was immediately followed by the BDS movement successfully lobbying the South African government to entirely cancel the water conference due to Israel’s participation.
Thanks to the growing influence of the increasing Muslim population and the leadership of the pro-jihad President Jacob Zuma aligned with the BDS, South Africans rejoiced at their ability to “tell off the Israelis” and to deny Israel the ability to claim credit for any humanitarian aid.
It is hard to imagine how much joy there must be today for a people to know that soon they are destined to helplessly watch their citizens die of thirst rather than accept aid from “those accursed Jews.”
It is a story of tragedy in South Africa – but it is more than that as well. It is a paradigm of the conflict between the world and the Jews, between the Arabs and the Israelis, between those consumed by a hatred and those anxious to extend a hand of help and of friendship to even the bitterest of enemies.
I find it significant that the Cape Town crisis revolves around water. Water has special meaning in Jewish tradition. It is so essential to life that it is the most frequently used metaphor in Judaism for Torah itself. Water and Torah are both indispensable for survival. When the Jews who left Egypt were in the desert of Sinai they could not, the Torah tells us, go three days without water. For that reason the sages instituted the public reading of the Torah on the Sabbath, Mondays and Thursdays – so no Jew would ever go three days bereft of the life-giving words of God’s gift to human kind.
We are the people of the book. Our role, as those designated to become – in the words of Isaiah – “a light unto the nations”, is to bring to the world the blessings of the Almighty’s spiritual waters. And yet, people thirsting for meaning in their lives and for purpose to their existence, prefer to reject us, even at the cost of their own survival.
Here is a profound example for the irrationality of hatred.
As my heart goes out to the victims, I have one great hope: If only the crisis of Cape Town could open the eyes of Israel haters to how much they have to gain if they would but choose peace over war, life over death and mutual blessings over eternal strife and conflict.
1a)
|
+++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++
2)
is part of the legitimate right of Iran for self-defense.
“The missile program of the Islamic Republic of Iran is part of the
legitimate right of Iran for self-defense,” said Justin Vaïsse, the Director
of the Policy Planning Staff of the French Ministry of Foreign Affairs.
The French envoy who is currently visiting Tehran made the remarks in a
meeting on Tuesday with MP Alaeddin Boroujerdi, the Chairman of Iran's
Parliament National Security and Foreign Policy Commission.
“The objective is not to change the JCPOA, but to find a logical way to keep
the agreement in place,” added the French envoy touching upon the Joint
Comprehensive Plan of Action or the nuclear agreement signed on July 14,
2015 between Iran and Sextet.
The French official also offered gratitude for the opportunity of having the
meeting with Iranian law-maker.
“The two countries of Iran and France have shared challenges in political
and regional areas so they can reach good results with interaction and share
of ideas,” highlighted Mr. Vaïsse.
The Iranian law-maker, Mr. Boroujerdi, for his part, in this meeting, voiced
content with growth in bilateral relations of Iran and France in areas of
politics and economy after the 2015 nuclear agreement signed in Vienna.
“We have always attached great importance to enhancing bilateral relations
with France in diverse areas and the Iranian Parliament supports the
expansion of reciprocal relations,” said the Iranian Member of Parliament.
He then asserted that the foreign policy of the Islamic Republic of Iran is
after having good relations with all countries based on mutual respect and
shared interests.
“It is necessary that the European Union, as a collection of powerful
countries with huge capacities take more serious stances against the recent
decisions made by US,” he urged the Europeans not to bend to Americans’
expansionism.
He attributed the recent crises in the region to the will of US to make
changes in political structures of some countries of the region. He
ascertained that the American policies in the region have all ended up to
failures.
2)
Iran displayed a nuclear-capable ballistic missile during parades celebrating the country’s 1979 revolution over the weekend, reinforcing concerns that it is in violation of the United Nations Security Council Resolution implementing the nuclear deal, the Washington Free Beacon reported Monday.
The Ghadr (or Qadr) missile, according to Iranian military officials “can be launched from mobile platforms or silos in different positions and can escape missile defense shields due to their radar-evading capability,” according to accounts appearing in Iran’s state-controlled media. Israel is within the range of the missile when launched from Iranian territory.
“Thirty-nine years in, the Islamic Revolution has little to show for its decades in power other than growing the country’s asymmetric military capabilities in order to continue their export of the revolution,” Behnam Ben Taleblu, an expert on Iran with the Foundation for Defense of Democracies, said. “The Islamic Republic has considerably grown the country’s missile and rocket arsenal, both through production and procurement.”
Taleblu also told the Washington Free Beacon, “The Ghadr can strike Israel when fired from Iranian territory, and in March 2016, was flight-tested while bearing genocidal slogans against the state of Israel.” He was referring to a test launch of a missile that had the phrase “Israel must be wiped off the Earth,” written on it in Hebrew.
UN Security Council Resolution 2231 formalized the 2015 nuclear deal with Iran, “calls upon Iran not to undertake any activity related to ballistic missiles designed to be capable of delivering nuclear weapons, including launches using such ballistic missile technology.”
In December of last year, both France and Germany reiterated their opposition to Iran’s continued ballistic missile development and called on the Islamic Republic to give up “its hegemonic temptations.”
France and Germany joined the United States and the United Kingdom in August 2017 in sending a letter to UN Secretary General António Guterres, charging that Iran’s launch of a satellite violated resolution 2231.
President Donald Trump, in October 2017, said that he would not certify Iran’s compliance with the nuclear deal and demanded that four aspects of the deal be fixed or he would no longer waive the sanctions that were lifted as part of the accord. Trump has demanded that: new negotiations eliminate the sunset provisions of the deal that allow Iran to develop an industrial scale uranium enrichment program by the deal’s end, prohibit Iran from developing ballistic missiles, ensure “anytime, anywhere” inspections so that Iran will have to allow inspectors into its military sites, and target Iran for sanctions for its human rights violations and support for terror.
Although Iran insists that its ballistic missile program is purely defensive, in November 2017 Hossein Salami, the lieutenant commander of Iran’s Islamic Revolutionary Guard Corps (IRGC), threatened that if Europeans insisted on negotiating over Iran’s missile program, Iran would increase the range of the missiles to reach Europe.
Iran has tested ballistic missiles capable of reaching Israel and reportedly used a Star of David as a target for one of its ballistic missile tests.
A UN report last week found that Iran had supplied ballistic missiles to Houthi rebels in Yemen. This would be a violation of Resolution 2231, which also prohibits Iran from transferring weapons—both conventional weapons and ballistic missiles—to other countries.
2a) French official says Iran’s missile program, legitimate defense right
TEHRAN, Feb. 13 (MNA) – Justin Vaïsse, the Director of the Policy Planning
Staff of the French Ministry of Foreign Affairs says Iranian missile program is part of the legitimate right of Iran for self-defense.
“The missile program of the Islamic Republic of Iran is part of the
legitimate right of Iran for self-defense,” said Justin Vaïsse, the Director
of the Policy Planning Staff of the French Ministry of Foreign Affairs.
The French envoy who is currently visiting Tehran made the remarks in a
meeting on Tuesday with MP Alaeddin Boroujerdi, the Chairman of Iran's
Parliament National Security and Foreign Policy Commission.
“The objective is not to change the JCPOA, but to find a logical way to keep
the agreement in place,” added the French envoy touching upon the Joint
Comprehensive Plan of Action or the nuclear agreement signed on July 14,
2015 between Iran and Sextet.
The French official also offered gratitude for the opportunity of having the
meeting with Iranian law-maker.
“The two countries of Iran and France have shared challenges in political
and regional areas so they can reach good results with interaction and share
of ideas,” highlighted Mr. Vaïsse.
The Iranian law-maker, Mr. Boroujerdi, for his part, in this meeting, voiced
content with growth in bilateral relations of Iran and France in areas of
politics and economy after the 2015 nuclear agreement signed in Vienna.
“We have always attached great importance to enhancing bilateral relations
with France in diverse areas and the Iranian Parliament supports the
expansion of reciprocal relations,” said the Iranian Member of Parliament.
He then asserted that the foreign policy of the Islamic Republic of Iran is
after having good relations with all countries based on mutual respect and
shared interests.
“It is necessary that the European Union, as a collection of powerful
countries with huge capacities take more serious stances against the recent
decisions made by US,” he urged the Europeans not to bend to Americans’
expansionism.
He attributed the recent crises in the region to the will of US to make
changes in political structures of some countries of the region. He
ascertained that the American policies in the region have all ended up to
failures.
+++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++
3) Islamic London: "Run, Hide, Tell"
by Daniel Pipes
Gatestone Institute
Gatestone Institute
To understand the development of Islam in Western countries, I make a habit of visiting Muslim-majority areas such as Lakemba in Australia, Lodi in California, and Lunel in France. But London, England, is unique in the extent of its Islamic impress.
Muslim-majority areas typically consist of poor, unattractive housing projects, remote from the city center, which long ago were abandoned by their original indigenous, working-class populations. They often feature men sitting around cafes and women cooped up at home. They suffer from a range of social pathologies, including unemployment, criminal gangs, and drug-trafficking.
London too has such areas, and they are very large; but what makes the English capital unique is the intense Muslim presence in the very most central and expensive parts of the city, where Muslims do not constitute a majority. This presence takes two main forms.
First, there's the posh Muslim element. According to a CBRE study, Middle Easterners invested over $4.2 billion in London commercial real estate in 2015 (the most recent full year with statistics); this money tends to go into high-profile properties such as the Shard, the city's tallest building; Harrods, its most glamorous department store; Claridge's, its most luxurious hotel; and purchasing the former U.S. embassy building.
Middle Easterners own some of London's most prominent buildings.
|
In sometimes obvious ways, Muslim proprietors make their ownership felt. Harrods, for example, prominently features halal signs in the food hall and mannequins wearing hijabs.
Harrods Food Hall prominently marks its halal food.
|
Some mannequins in Harrods wear hijabs.
|
Middle Eastern restaurants, clothing stores, and hair salons abound, of course, but more surprising are the Arabic-, Persian- and Urdu-signed stores that have no special connection to Muslims, such as a pharmacy, a spa, a clinic with Chinese medicine, and an airport transfer company.
Even the American chain Cinnabon sports an Arabic sign.
|
In some cases, the name of the store is only in Arabic.
"Sawt was-Sura," ("Voice and Picture").
|
Second, the Muslim presence is implicit in the intense, pervasive, and depressing security measures installed against jihadi threats of violence. These range from signs urging "Run, Hide, Tell," to bollards, barriers, and gates.
Especially evident are the many protective measures installed in March 2017, immediately after a violent Islamist, Khalid Masood, killed five people on Westminster Bridge. During a recent visit to central London, I puzzled over one of these installations, a metal barrier that completely surrounds Green Park.
The barrier surrounding Green Park.
|
The barrier is continuous, interrupted only by occasional narrow gates, either yellow or grey, which allow pedestrians to enter the park. No one checks bags at these gates, so the security perimeter prevents only cars and trucks from barging into the park. But why would anyone drive a vehicle into this park? Granted Buckingham Palace is nearby, but across a wide street, so surrounding Green Park with a barrier does nothing to protect it. The barrier seemingly protects grass and trees.
An entrance into Green Park.
|
Perhaps the saddest aspect of this security is the glorious blue Devonshire Gate obstructed by the ugly grey barrier.
The seventeenth-century Devonshire Gate, designed by famed architect Inigo Jones.
|
Nor are bollards, barriers, and gates unique to London. In Birmingham, for instance, the Christmas Market featured the familiar yellow gates (complete with helpful entrance and exit markers).
An entrance to Birmingham's Christmas Market.
|
This security extended even to the smallest alleyway.
An alleyway approaching Birmingham's Christmas Market.
|
More than any other major Western city, London bears an Arabic, Middle Eastern, and Islamic impress, from its mayor to its commercial real estate market. I wish I were optimistic about the outcome of this experiment, as the majority of the English population remain even today.
+++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++
4)This Isn't Normal
By Ben Shapiro
You've heard the phrase over and over again: "This isn't normal." We've heard it about President Trump's rhetoric, and his Twitter usage. We've heard it about his attacks on the media, and we've heard it about his legislative ignorance. We've heard it about his running commentary on the Mueller investigation, and we've heard it about his bizarre stream-of-consciousness interviews.
There's some truth to all of this. Trump has said some incredibly awful things (e.g. his comments on Charlottesville, Virginia, and Haitians). He's not a predictable, stable genius.
All of this "non-normality," however, has resulted in ... a relatively normal situation. The economy's booming. We're on more solid foreign-policy ground than we were when President Obama was in office -- by a long shot. The Constitution hasn't been torn asunder. The structures of government are still in place. Trump may be toxic rhetorically, but his presidency hasn't annihilated the norms that govern our society.
The same can't be said, however, of the media institutions that seem so consumed with saving the republic from the specter of Trump. Like self-appointed superheroes so intent on stopping an alien monster that they end up destroying the entire city, our media are so focused on stopping Trump that they end up undermining both their credibility and faith in American institutions.
Take, for example, the media's coverage of North Korea at the Winter Olympics. Suddenly, the worst regime on the planet has been transformed into a cute exhibit from "It's a Small World." Those women in red forced to smile and cheer on cue? Just an example of the brilliance of revolutionary North Korean "juche" ideology. Kim Jong Un's sister, a member of the inner cabinet of a regime that imprisons thousands of dissenters and shoots those who don't properly worship the Dear Respected? She's an example of Marxist humility and stellar diplomacy.
It's not just the media. This week, we learned that former FBI Director James Comey, former Deputy Attorney General Sally Yates, former national security adviser Susan Rice, former Vice President Joe Biden and former President Obama held a last-minute meeting at the White House to discuss the possibility of Trump-Russia collusion. At that meeting, Rice wrote in an email, Obama reportedly asked whether there was any reason "we cannot share information fully as it relates to Russia." That means that Obama asked his top staff, including the FBI, whether he could hide intelligence information from the incoming Trump team.
That amounts to a massive breach in the constitutional structure. The FBI is not an independent agency. It is part of the executive branch. The incoming Trump administration was duly elected by the American people and had every right to see all intelligence information coming from the FBI and the CIA. Yet it was the supposedly normal Obama White House exploring means of preventing that transparency.
Trump isn't a normal president. But the threat to our institutions doesn't reside only at 1600 Pennsylvania Ave. -- or even primarily there. It resides with those who are willing to side with any enemy and violate every rule in order to stop the supposed threat of Trump
4a)The media is
ignoring ties
between theClinton
campaign and
Russians
By Ed Rogers
While the media is filled with stories and theories about Trump’s interactions — or lack thereof — with Russia, not enough attention is being paid to revelations about pro-Hillary Clinton operatives’ use of opposition research that ostensibly came from Russia. With the Democrats unable to govern and lacking much of an affirmative agenda, they want Russia to be the story. Yet with each passing day, more seems to be revealed that not only undercuts the absolute faith Democrats have in the Trump-Russia collusion narrative but also demonstrates just how much they did and how far they were willing to go to establish an improper or embarrassing link between Trump and Russia.
There is no better illustration of this than what we now know went on between Clinton allies Sidney Blumenthal and Jonathan Winer and the author of the infamous dossier, Christopher Steele. We know that Steele was paid with Clinton campaign money and that he was “passionate about [Trump] not being president.” We know that Winer, an old Washington hand and former John Kerry staffer was Steele’s man at the State Department and, incredibly, admitted to distributing more than 100 of Steele’s commercial business documents within senior offices at the State Department. Soon enough, we will know who Steele’s clients were that paid for their views to be disseminated within the Obama administration and what Russian interests were involved. And by the way, it turns out Blumenthal, a long-time specialist in the political dark arts, had his own anti-Trump dossier, authored by political activist Cody Shearer, which he gave to Winer; Winer passed it to Steele, and Steele passed it to the FBI. Presto. Keeping someone between the political operatives and the FBI: That’s how real pros do it in the swamp.
Anyway, you would think this operation would warrant appropriate news coverage and multiple follow-up questions from the mainstream media. But instead, it is mostly crickets. Compare the coverage of the Blumenthal-Steele-Winer troika and their work to influence the FBI and supply anti-Trump campaign dirt to the media with the coverage of a single meeting that took place with a Russian lawyer and Trump campaign personnel. Ask yourself which is most significant: Donald Trump Jr. — the hapless, amateur son of then-candidate Trump — having a one-off, stray meeting in June 2016 with a Russian lawyer who perhaps promised, but did not deliver, compromising information on Clinton, or Winer, Blumenthal and foreign national Steele all playing a role in getting campaign dirt through Steele’s and State Department channels into the hands of the FBI? With all the breathless scrutiny surrounding Trump Jr.’s meeting, one would think there would at least be a modicum of interest in Blumenthal, Winer and Steele.
The idea that the Democrats were the ones who solicited and utilized Russian-supplied, damning information about Trump instead of Trump using Russian-supplied, damning information about Clinton is something that Trump’s opponents cannot process. So, today, when the Democrats and their allies in the media insist that we need to know what the Russians did to influence the election and interfere in the democratic process, it is fair to ask which Russians are they talking about? Are they talking about the Russians who were solicited by Steele and his Democrat paymasters? What were the Russians’ interests and were any of them paying Steele? (A new story links Steele to Putin ally Oleg Deripaska.) And what about the sources that Shearer solicited for the anti-Trump dossier he gave to Blumenthal? It seems that there were a lot more meetings with Russians and information collected from Russians on behalf of the Clinton campaign than there ever was on behalf of the Trump campaign.
The idea that the Democrats were the ones who solicited and utilized Russian-supplied, damning information about Trump instead of Trump using Russian-supplied, damning information about Clinton is something that Trump’s opponents cannot process. So, today, when the Democrats and their allies in the media insist that we need to know what the Russians did to influence the election and interfere in the democratic process, it is fair to ask which Russians are they talking about? Are they talking about the Russians who were solicited by Steele and his Democrat paymasters? What were the Russians’ interests and were any of them paying Steele? (A new story links Steele to Putin ally Oleg Deripaska.) And what about the sources that Shearer solicited for the anti-Trump dossier he gave to Blumenthal? It seems that there were a lot more meetings with Russians and information collected from Russians on behalf of the Clinton campaign than there ever was on behalf of the Trump campaign.
It may be difficult for Democrats to accept this, but their outrage towards the president doesn’t change the fact that neither he nor his campaign colluded with the Russians. And it must be difficult knowing that more evidence or downright admissions keep surfacing pointing to Democrats facilitating Russian influence in the 2016 campaign. Russian fingerprints are all over the work of Blumenthal, Winer and Steele. Exploring their actions must be a priority for the media.
4b) Trump and the Dreamers
4b) Trump and the Dreamers
The political incentives are in place for a bipartisan compromise.
By The Editorial Board
The moment is possible, paradoxically, thanks to Donald Trump. His decision not to renew Barack Obama’s illegal Deferred Action for Childhood Arrivals order means that more than 700,000 young adults who arrived here as children could soon be subject to deportation. But having campaigned as an immigration restrictionist, Mr. Trump also has the credibility on the right to sell legalization for these so-called Dreamers.
These columns have long supported a generous immigration policy that makes America a mecca for the world’s talent. But we’ve also had to concede that this aspiration faces political restraints, especially in a post-9/11 world. We’d happily support a clean bill authorizing a pathway to citizenship for the Dreamers stuck in legal limbo, but Mr. Trump needs something he can call a political victory for his voters.
The good news is that Mr. Trump’s recent policy outline is more reasonable than the demands that the White House made last fall. The President has proposed providing a 10- to 12-year pathway to citizenship for an estimated 1.8 million immigrants who would be eligible for DACA even if they haven’t signed up. This is smart politics since it gets the citizenship issue off the table so Democrats can’t use it as a wedge against Republicans in the future. The U.S. also shouldn’t create a group of second-class permanent residents.
In return, Mr. Trump wants $25 billion for border security. This money would do more for national security if it went to build more Navy submarines, but Mr. Trump won’t sign something without a victory for his wall on the U.S.-Mexico border. Construction would take years, and Congress could appropriate some of the funds for technology such as infrared imaging systems, drones and X-rays to detect smuggled drugs at border checkpoints and ports. Democrats already agreed to more than this in the 2013 Senate bill.
Mr. Trump also wants to hire more attorneys and administrative judges to clear the backlog of 670,000 cases—more than 23,000 of which involve criminal and security threats—pending in immigration court. This seems reasonable. On average, each case takes two years to adjudicate, which abridges due process and makes it harder to deport criminals.
The biggest sticking point will be restrictions on family-based migration. Mr. Trump wants to limit who citizens can sponsor for green cards to minor children and spouses, so no more siblings, adult children and parents. Our friend Stuart Anderson at the National Foundation for American Policy estimates that this policy if fully implemented would reduce legal immigration by about 400,000 a year, which would hurt the economy.
But Mr. Trump has also agreed to process the backlog of 3.7 million family members currently waiting for visas. The latter could take more than a decade, so there won’t be a major reduction in family-based immigration anytime soon. Mr. Trump’s offer has also exposed restrictionists who have long argued that any form of “amnesty” for illegal immigrants is unfair to those who have waited in line. But now these restrictionist want to bar those waiting in line too.
This is a bait and switch that Mr. Trump is right to reject—and Democrats should give him credit for doing. Some compromise over family migration ought to be possible, but if Democrats won’t budge then the GOP will surely withdraw Mr. Trump’s offer on the backlog. Democrats have to decide if they want to accept this concession and fight for more family migration when a Democrat is President.
As for the immediate politics, both sides have good reason to strike a deal. Democrats could finally take credit for legalizing young people they claim to speak for but haven’t been able to help for the long term. If they are seen as killing legalization after they tried and failed to shut down the government, they will look cynical and Mr. Trump will blame them for the failure.
Republicans should also not want the issue trailing them through November and beyond. That’s especially true for candidates running in states with large Hispanic populations like Nevada and Arizona. Mr. Trump would get money for his wall and say he solved a problem that Mr. Obama and George W. Bush could not.
Above all, a deal would break the vetoes that left and right have held over immigration policy. A demonstration of good will could lay the political ground for future compromises on skilled immigration. It would also provide a morale boost for the country, which for too long has been roiled by poisonous immigration politics. The incentives are in place for a deal, and those who are seen to kill it may pay a larger political price than they imagine.
+++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++
5)Major General Peter Cosgrove is an Australian.
General Cosgrove was being interviewed on the radio. Read his reply to the lady who interviewed him concerning guns and children.
Regardless of how you feel about gun laws you have to love this! This is one of the best comeback lines of all time.
5)Major General Peter Cosgrove is an Australian.
General Cosgrove was being interviewed on the radio. Read his reply to the lady who interviewed him concerning guns and children.
Regardless of how you feel about gun laws you have to love this! This is one of the best comeback lines of all time.
This is a portion of an interview between a female broadcaster and General Cosgrove who was about to sponsor a Boy Scout Troop visiting his military Headquarters.
FEMALE INTERVIEWER:
So, General Cosgrove, what things are you going to teach these young boys when they visit your base?
GENERAL COSGROVE:!
We're going to teach them climbing, canoeing, archery and shooting.
FEMALE INTERVIEWER:
Shooting! That's a bit irresponsible, isn't it?
GENERAL COSGROVE:
I don't see why, they'll be properly supervised on the rifle range.
FEMALE INTERVIEWER:
Don't you admit that this is a terribly dangerous activity to be teaching children?
GENERAL COSGROVE:
I don't see how. We will be teaching them proper rifle discipline before they even touch a firearm.
FEMALE INTERVIEWER:
But you're equipping them to become violent killers.
GENERAL COSGROVE:
Well, Ma'am, you're equipped to be a prostitute, but you're not one, are you?
The radiocast went silent for 46 seconds and when it returned, the interview was over.
FEMALE INTERVIEWER:
So, General Cosgrove, what things are you going to teach these young boys when they visit your base?
GENERAL COSGROVE:!
We're going to teach them climbing, canoeing, archery and shooting.
FEMALE INTERVIEWER:
Shooting! That's a bit irresponsible, isn't it?
GENERAL COSGROVE:
I don't see why, they'll be properly supervised on the rifle range.
FEMALE INTERVIEWER:
Don't you admit that this is a terribly dangerous activity to be teaching children?
GENERAL COSGROVE:
I don't see how. We will be teaching them proper rifle discipline before they even touch a firearm.
FEMALE INTERVIEWER:
But you're equipping them to become violent killers.
GENERAL COSGROVE:
Well, Ma'am, you're equipped to be a prostitute, but you're not one, are you?
The radiocast went silent for 46 seconds and when it returned, the interview was over.
5a) Fight Putin With Fire
Moscow reportedly plans to interfere with another U.S. election. Russia has an election coming up too.
By Janusz Bugajski
The Central Intelligence Agency has reported that Moscow is preparing to interfere in November’s midterm elections. On the theory that the best defense is a good offense, why shouldn’t Washington consider launching a cyberoffensive against the Kremlin? A targeted onslaught could disrupt the stability of Vladimir Putin’s regime.
Russia faces a presidential election March 18. The result is already decided— Mr. Putin will win—but the country is vulnerable to cyberpenetration. A key component of a covert assault would be to hack and disseminate official Russian communications, with a focus on the Kremlin, government ministries, Parliament, key businesses and subservient political parties, as well as private correspondence between officials.
Although the regime controls the major media outlets, potentially incendiary leaks can be circulated through social media, a favorite instrument of Kremlin disinformation in the West. The objective would be to disclose publicly the most provocative scandals of Russia’s top officials and the extent of their corrupt governance, opulent lifestyles, public lies, and contempt for ordinary citizens.
Especially valuable would be messages that reveal the willingness of officials, oligarchs and bureaucrats to betray the country for personal gain. Western intelligence services certainly possess more comprehensive information about the theft of the Russian budget than does even Alexei Navalny, the anticorruption campaigner barred from standing in the election.
A U.S. offensive could be extended beyond the election as part of a broader psychological influence operation. Such a strategy would have two core objectives: alienating the public from the regime and provoking power struggles inside the ruling stratum. Detailed revelations about official treason and financial abuse can fuel social, ethnic, regional and religious unrest—especially as living standards for the masses continue to plunge. Regime change would then become the responsibility of the exploited and manipulated Russian citizens.
Simultaneously, disclosures about conflicts within the ruling elite would generate uncertainty and anxiety in government circles and expose the regime’s political vulnerabilities. Even if that doesn’t immediately precipitate Mr. Putin’s downfall, it could help divert the Kremlin from its unchallenged cyberwar against Western democracies.
Some will caution that such an offensive against Moscow would be provocative and would escalate disputes between the U.S. and Russia. The Kremlin, however, perceives the lack of an effective U.S. response to its election meddling as weakness and vulnerability. The assault on American democracy continues to this day primarily because of an inadequate counterattack and the limited impact of financial sanctions against Russian officials.
Besides, Moscow will accuse America of interfering in its elections anyway. Washington might as well accomplish something.
Mr. Bugajski is a senior fellow at the Center for European Policy Analysis in Washington and co-author, with Margarita Assenova, of “Eurasian Disunion: Russia’s Vulnerable Flanks” (Jamestown Foundation, 2016).
______________________________________________________________________________________
6) Kelly and the Chaos
The people who want him fired don’t want a better White House.
The tom toms are beating for the head of Chief of Staff John Kelly for mishandling the White House response to spousal abuse allegations against former aide Rob Porter. Unless President Trump has lost confidence in the former Marine General, it isn’t clear what good his dismissal would do beyond satisfying Mr. Trump’s opponents.
Mr. Kelly didn’t help himself Monday by saying that the White House handling of the Porter accusations “was all done right.” He and others misjudged the uproar that similar and credible stories by Mr. Porter’s two former wives would unleash amid the #MeToo furor. He also seems to have given Mr. Porter the benefit of the doubt when the only real “due process” in the White House should be what helps or hurts the President.
But Mr. Kelly didn’t abuse those women, though you wouldn’t know it from the media denunciations. Our guess is that, amid the 25 items in his inbox, Mr. Kelly wanted to keep one of his best deputies if he could. This may be a violation of the #MeToo movement’s view that all accusations are instantly believable, but it isn’t by itself a firing offense.
The latest uproar concerns whether the White House was accurate in saying the FBI investigation into Mr. Porter’s security clearance was “ongoing.” FBI Director Christopher Wray told Congress Tuesday that the FBI had “administratively closed” the Porter file last month. Mr. Porter was working under an interim clearance, and denial of a permanent clearance means someone must leave the White House. Mr. Kelly needs to get the complete story straight and make it public, but it isn’t clear that this discrepancy was intentional deception.
Mr. Kelly has reportedly offered to resign, and that might be something of a personal relief. The General gave up a cabinet post to work for this most difficult of Presidents, and he isn’t doing it for the money. He wants to help the country, and on the evidence until the Porter mess he has.
He has imposed at least a semblance of discipline since he arrived at the West Wing last summer. He eased out chaoticians like Steve Bannon and dramarians like Omarosa. He made it hard to walk in unannounced to the Oval Office, even for daughter Ivanka Trump and son-in-law Jared Kushner. Policy now gets developed, debated and decided. The leakers are fewer. He was in charge for the success of tax reform.
Mr. Trump remains a hard client who can hurt his own cause at any moment, but that isn’t Mr. Kelly’s fault. As a former General, Mr. Kelly has the President’s respect in a way that his likely replacements might not. Mr. Trump treated Reince Priebus, his first chief of staff, like a political valet. We don't know anyone in the White House who wants to return to the first six months of fire and fury, and this Presidency won’t benefit from more policy influence by Ivanka and Jared.
The point for Mr. Trump to keep in mind is that the people who want Mr. Kelly fired don’t want a better White House staff. They want perpetual political dysfunction.
++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++
7) Uranium One Is a Curious Case
A lot wasn’t known that would now be embarrassing for a President Clinton.
By Holman W. Jenkins, Jr.
He acceded in 2010 to a Russian government desire to acquire a company whose assets included a Nevada uranium mine on the widely accepted grounds that economic interdependence helps relations stay on a productive path. And, by the way, Russia cannot cart a uranium mine in Nevada back to Russia. If its national security were ever jeopardized, the U.S. could always seize the mine. So that’s not an issue.
Would it have been embarrassing for the Obama policy if it were known that the uranium assets the Russian government sought to buy had been accumulated by Canadian entrepreneurs working closely with Bill Clinton ? That the Clinton Foundation received $145 million in pledged contributions from people associated with these transactions? That Mr. Clinton had been paid $500,000 for a speech in Moscow?
Yes. It would have raised political difficulties for Mr. Obama’s Russia policy. It would have harmed the reputation of his secretary of state, Hillary Clinton. How would such knowledge have flavored a multiagency review in charge of approving the mine deal, inevitably tinged by Obama political interests? Hard to say.
The scandal would likely have remained a political one, not a legal one. But who knows? The Watergate truism that it’s not the crime, it’s the coverup should really be modified. Once any kind of investigation is launched on any pretext, a crime can always be found. That’s a given. Not to relitigate Mrs. Clinton’s emails, but if the FBI didn’t find a basis to charge her aides with obstruction and evidence tampering, it’s only because it didn’t want to. Or take Donald Trump : Any prosecutor should hang up his spurs who can’t find something in Mr. Trump’s checkered business history, starting with federal Title 16, Chapter 1, Subchapter b, Part 23, Section 23.3: “Misuse of the terms ‘hand-made,’ ‘hand-polished,’ etc.”
A slight nuance, of course, is that the Clintons ’ conflict-of-interest baggage was born of exploiting their politically-earned celebrity, and not the other way around. Whether he meant it or not, Mr. Trump recognized and met expectations when he said, on taking office, he no longer would concern himself with the businesses he left behind. He had a much bigger job now. Though Mrs. Clinton would certainly have been expected to say something similar if she were elected president, she would also have been semi-obliged to insist that the Clinton Foundation was but an extension of her lifelong devotion to public service, which she would be continuing in the White House.
As history records, of course, Uranium One is the scandal that didn’t happen, or is happening only belatedly. The Clinton Foundation connection did not become known. Its dealings did not become fodder for partisan opposition to President Obama or his Russia policy. Only recently have we become aware of a new and piquant fact. What if it had been known that the FBI was sitting on a case involving demonstrable malfeasance (bribery and kickbacks) by the Russian company’s U.S. arm? What if an eyewitness who had helped crack the case told the FBI (as he now claims he did) that Russian uranium executives had spoken openly of currying favor with the Clinton Foundation to advance their U.S. business?
The Nevada mine transfer would have been a lot more politically controversial at the time than it was. President Obama’s Russia rapprochement might have run aground earlier than it eventually did when Russia in 2014 seized Crimea. Mr. Obama might have come to see his secretary of state, Mrs. Clinton, as a political liability.
Which makes it interesting that the FBI, under its then-chief Robert Mueller, appears to have sat on the case—only getting around quietly to announcing a plea deal with the Russian executive five years later, in 2015. It is not necessarily wrong for the FBI to consider the impact on national-security policy of any criminal case that it intends nevertheless to pursue to conviction. But the fact remains: The FBI handled the Uranium One matter in a manner that avoided making immediate trouble for the policy and political interests of Barack Obama and Hillary Clinton.
Which means, if a few thousand voters in the upper Midwest had woken up on a different side of the bed in November 2016, the agency’s treatment of Uranium One might be one more subject of investigation by a GOP congress of President Hillary Clinton. Along with: the Steele dossier; the Steele dossier’s role in an FBI application to spy on Trump associate Carter Page ; the FBI’s handling of the Clinton email case; the FBI’s investigation (still under way) of a questionable mixing of government and Clinton Foundation business at Mrs. Clinton’s State Department.
In other words, a Clinton presidency would likely be swallowed up in investigative chaos no less than the Trump presidency. There was an awful lot of baggage to go around among the headliners of the 2016 presidential race.
7a) No Racial Quotas in Special Education
Betsy DeVos is preparing to undo another pernicious Obama school policy.
The Trump administration spent much of its first year blocking or delaying its pr ed ecessor’s regulations. Thankfully, that work continues apace in year two. Any day now, look for the Education Department to halt implementation of an Obama -era rule on racial disparities in special education that was set to take full effect in July.
Black students are more likely than white students to be placed in special-education classes, and the Obama administration attributed the disparity (along with nearly every black-white gap) to racial bias. Thus in late 2016, weeks before leaving office, Obama officials issued a rule that threatened school districts with financial penalties if they didn’t achieve racial balance in special ed.
The rule, which would effectively impose racial quotas, is likely unconstitutional. Moreover, academic research shows that racial bias is not the cause of disproportionate representation of black pupils in special ed. Anyone who cares about the prospects of minority youngsters should welcome the Trump administration’s decision to put the rule on hold.
A 2015 study by scholars at UC Irvine and Penn State University found that black children are more likely than white children to be born prematurely and have high levels of lead in their blood, among other factors that often result in learning disabilities and speech impairments. When otherwise similar groups of black and white adolescents were compared, the data didn’t show that black students were more likely to be placed in special education classes. In fact, it showed the opposite: “The real problem is that black children are underrepresented in special-education classes when compared with white children with similar levels of academic achievement, behavior and family economic resources,” two of the authors, Paul Morgan and George Farkas, wrote in an op-ed.
To the extent that the Obama-era rule could make teachers and administrators fearing accusations of racial bias too skittish to do their jobs properly, it potentially puts at-risk children at even more risk. Do we want racial proportionality to become more important than matching students with the educational tools that will serve them best? Do we want school districts identifying special-needs kids based on the evidence or based on a desire to stay out of the federal government’s crosshairs?
Those questions are not theoretical. The Obama Education Department’s obsession with disparate-impact analysis also led it to pressure schools into disciplining fewer black students, even if those students represented a higher proportion of troublemakers. In 2016 and 2017, President Obama and his wife visited Washington, D.C., schools that boasted fewer suspensions and higher graduation rates. But a Washington Post investigation last year revealed that administrators at some D.C. schools were underreporting the number of suspensions. Other schools were juicing graduation numbers by not counting low-performing students in the graduating class and granting diplomas to chronically absent kids who didn’t qualify for a degree. “This is [the] biggest way to keep a community down,” a black teacher told NPR. “To graduate students who aren’t qualified, send them off to college unprepared, so they return to the community to continue the cycle.”
Education Secretary Betsy DeVos has said that her team is “looking closely” at the Obama school-suspension guidance, which was issued in 2014 via a “Dear Colleague” letter and could be rescinded with another one. Let’s hope she gets on with it. Cities from Los Angeles to Chicago to New York provide evidence that reducing school suspensions has increased classroom disorder, which works to the detriment of those minority students who are in school to get an education, not make mischief. A study of Wisconsin schools published last month by the Wisconsin Institute for Law and Liberty noted that “softer discipline policies, pushed by the Obama Administration, are having a negative impact on student test scores.” Is it any shock that when undisciplined students aren’t removed from the classroom, less learning takes place?
Obama administration officials and their progressive supporters used disparate-impact analysis to dodge a discussion about differences in student behavior, which might have brought to the surface other uncomfortable facts. Boys are suspended at higher rates than girls, and whites are suspended at higher rates than Asians. Moreover, a significant share of teachers and other staff in many majority-minority schools are of the same race and ethnicity as the students, which somewhat undermines “hidden bias” claims.
The previous administration took sides with bad actors out of political expediency. Mrs. DeVos’s focus should be on students who just want a safe learning environment and a decent education.
++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++
8) Kim Yo Jong is a Twisted Sister
She holds a key post in Pyongyang’s fearsome and brutal Propaganda and Agitation Department.
By Claudia Rosett
Missing from most of the media coverage was any detail about Ms. Kim’s day job in Pyongyang. In North Korea this kid sister has served under Big Brother as a deputy director of the powerful and omnipresent Propaganda and Agitation Department. She has apparently racked up a record so stellar that last year the U.S. Treasury blacklisted her as a top North Korean official tied to “notorious abuses of human rights.” Mr. Kim gave her an alternate seat on his politburo.
In blacklisting Ms. Kim, the Treasury specified that her department “controls all media in the country, which the government uses to control the public.” That’s an understatement. The Propaganda and Agitation Department’s mission is to control not only media but minds—to indoctrinate all North Koreans, at all levels, in the absolute supremacy of Kim Jong Un and his Workers’ Party.
A 2014 report by a special United Nations commission on human rights in North Korea found that “there is an almost complete denial of the right to freedom of thought, conscience and religion.” That entails a pervasive normalization of evil. Any deviation is suppressed via imprisonment, torture and execution. The commission found the regime carries out crimes against humanity on a scale “that does not have any parallel in the contemporary world.”
In a detailed report published last year by the Washington -based Committee for Human Rights in North Korea, Robert Collins and Amanda Mortwedt Oh described the Propaganda and Agitation Department as playing “a key role in justifying Kim family rule through domestic and external propaganda.” They added that entire families may be punished if one member is suspected of dissent. The aim is to ensure the survival, glorification and total power of the Kim regime and its hereditary tyrant.
That’s the training and family tradition behind Ms. Kim’s visit to South Korea. Her delegation included plenty of backup, such as Choe Hwi, a vice director of the Propaganda and Agitation Department who has been blacklisted by the U.S. (and the U.N.) for human-rights abuses. The Treasury noted that Mr. Choe “has reportedly been responsible for maintaining ideological purity.” Currently he is chairman of North Korea’s National Sports Guidance Committee.
Ms. Kim, with her freckles and enigmatic smile, is a trained and trusted royal brainwasher for a family regime whose court is built on totalitarian lies. Her admirers in the media ought to be impressed by the professionalism with which she snookered them.
Ms. Rosett is a foreign-policy fellow with the Independent Women’s Forum.
++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++
S