Lynn's Israel Cousin, Gil Appel,
named teacher of the year.
+++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++
Old Dear Friends - The Barkers, See 3 and 3a below.)
Atlanta Juvenile Diabetes Fund
Raiser
++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++
As I recently noted it seems the hypocrisy of the left and their many swamp creatures are beginning to implode.
In a democracy where the semblance of freedom still remains, it takes time for hypocrisy to self-destruct. Why? In my opinion, there are sufficient numbers in America who are attracted to what is new and against the precept of what combines to make up the American Character.After all, for decades Madison Avenue preached, what was new was better and Barnum told us about suckers.
Also,in a free society, there are those who have billions of dollars they are willing to spend on changing views and attitudes and undermining our society because they would like nothing better than too bring America down. Soros comes to mind and Victor Davis Hanson names a host of others who are caught up in wanting to impact our nation, to change our values because doing so is profitable. (I am re-posting Hanson's recent article below.)
[My wife just came in and told me Pompeo is returning with three N Korean hostages and Trump did not pay a dime unlike Obama.]
While I am on the subject, I believe it is only a matter of time before Obama is the next Swamp Creature to be proven to have been a naked emperor. He was the "Music Man" from the git go and over eight years did more damage to our nation than any president, including Nixon, Clinton and even Wilson combined. He never could bring himself to favor America over other nations, particularly those that were Arab and Muslim, because of his personal background and associations.
Hopefully, the Obama Era will fade over time and maybe our nation will regain its sensible, rational, logical and practical moorings. Maybe the "Yankee, ie. Trump, Bolton, Pompeo" in us will return to guide our policies and we will reject Progressive PC garbage and drive the Phillistines off College Campuses.. I long for that day!!! (See 1, 1a and 1b below..)
++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++
Will The New York Times allow Stephens to continue playing the role of their fifth columnist? Will Stephens eventually have the intellectual courage/integrity to admit he misread Trump? (See 2 below.)
++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++
I caught a few minutes of the testimony of Trump's nominee to be Director of the CIA.
There were two items of note that caught my attetion:
1) Many of the committee members who voted for Obama's previous director seem opposed to Trump's candidate because they believe their double standard is justified..
2) Because Trump's nominee followed the law, when it came to waterboarding, and did not oppose the law, Democrats on the committee argue she acted immorally.
We know Democrats, liberals, progressives and their kind are virtuous and paragons of propriety/morality therefore, they have every right to judge another's. We also know, here too, they apply double standards and looked the other way when Hillary violated the law etc.
If the Nobel Committee ever awarded the Prize for Hypocrisy I believe the Democrats would win hands down.
++++++++++++++++++++++++++++
Dick
++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++
1)The Trump Land Mine
After the 2016 election, the so-called deep state was confident that it had the power easily to either stop, remove, or delegitimize the outlier Donald Trump and his presidency.
Give it credit, the Washington apparat quite imaginatively pulled out all the stops: implanting Obama holdover appointees all over the Trump executive branch; filing lawsuits and judge shopping; organizing the Resistance; pursuing impeachment writs; warping the FISA courts; weaponizing the DOJ and FBI; attempting to disrupt the Electoral College; angling for enactment of the 25th Amendment or the emoluments clause; and unleashing Hollywood celebrities, Silicon Valley, and many in Wall Street to suffocate the Trump presidency in its infancy.
But now the administrative state’s multifaceted efforts are starting to unwind, and perhaps even boomerang, on the perpetrators. If a federal judge should end up throwing out most of the indictments of Paul Manafort on the rationale that they have nothing much to do with the original mandate of the special counsel’s office, or if Michael Flynn’s confession to giving false statements is withdrawn successfully because the FBI politicized its investigation and FISA courts were misled in approving the surveillance of Flynn, then the Mueller investigation will implode.
Indeed, the Mueller investigation would likely lose so much public support that the Department of Justice could probably dismiss it with impunity. So, in an ironic sense, Mueller’s overreach might well end once and for all the absurdities of the special counsel/prosecutor law that for nearly half a century has plagued the nation.
Until recently, deep-state apparatchiks such as John Brennan, James Clapper, James Comey, and Andrew McCabe seemed immune from accountability after lying either to Congress or to federal authorities. In a perverse sort of way, the more Robert Mueller plays the role of the obsessed but impotent Inspector Javert, the more he demonstrates that there is no Russian-Trump collusion. Meanwhile, he is establishing precedents that those whom he exempts from his own zeal will inevitably have to account for their own lawbreaking. One cannot justifiably hound Michael Flynn for supposedly misleading FBI agents, when agency investigators were told by Huma Abedin and Cheryl Mills that they had known nothing about Hillary Clinton’s private server during her tenure as secretary of state — despite evidence that they themselves had communicated over it (as had the former president of the United States).
In his increasing desperation, Mueller may manage to finish off the declining reputation of FBI’s Washington office to the degree that there is not much left of it after the work of James Comey, Andrew McCabe, Lisa Page, and Peter Strzok. And he may only fuel more criminal complaints against deep-state bureaucrats who worked at the FBI and the DOJ.
In truth, the multiplex world of the establishment is crumbling in a variety of arenas, from entertainment to the workplace. Certainly, the NFL is both bleeding viewers and now seen as an ancillary of the progressive movement. The sports channel ESPN is losing its audience that is tired of being lectured about its supposed ethical shortcomings instead of being enlightened about three-point shots and no-hitters. The century-old White House Correspondents’ Dinner is going the way of the 90-year-old Oscars: It’s an increasingly incestuous night of progressive virtue-signaling, crudity, and mediocrity that permanently turned off millions of former viewers. Americans can forgive a lot of shortcomings in their entertainers; boredom is not one of them.
Between the Me Too movement and the Russian-collusion hysteria, not much remains of the reputations of Hollywood and the media. When, fairly or not, Tom Brokaw is lumped into the ranks of Mark Halpern, Dustin Hoffman, Garrison Keillor, Larry King, Matt Lauer, Ryan Lizza, Charlie Rose, Tavis Smiley, Kevin Spacey, Harvey Weinstein, and a host of others, there is really not much left of the old power brokers. Once upon a time, Americans assumed that a Tom Brokaw, Matt Lauer, Dan Rather, or Charlie Rose were their go-tos for ethical and sober journalism. Again, justly or not, that norm no longer holds. NBC and CNN, which have long routinely parodied Fox News, are far less likely than Fox to permit ideological and political diversity on the air.
Silicon Valley likewise has lost its luster. Once upon a time, America loved a hip Steve Jobs, decked out in black, fiddling with a new Apple gadget on stage in front of an entranced televised audience of millions. Jobs appeared as a brilliant and typically American entrepreneur, not a partisan talking down to hoi polloi.
Things have radically changed since then. The reputation of Big Tech is one of hyper-partisan politics, data miners, snoops, Bowdlerizers and censors, monopolists, progressive multibillionaires, and adolescents in arrested development who exempt themselves from the consequences of what their ideologies inflict on others.
If the deep state really wanted to dismantle and disarm Donald Trump, it would have been wise first to carefully learn how he was constructed and wired — and thus why he was especially dangerous to them.
In Wizard of Oz fashion, it’s as if the public is no longer frightened of the omnipotent imperial faces on their screens — once it drew apart the high-tech curtains and exposed tiny little nerds with nasal voices furiously working levers and gears to project deceptive all-powerful images. Even a four-trillion-dollar industry can take only so many scandals like those at Theranos, Facebook data mining, deliberately slowed-down iPhones, fatally texting drivers, and Mark Zuckerbergs.
Donald Trump proved to be a catalyst for much of the implosion of the deep state. Land mines require careful handling. Only arrogant naïfs think that they can rush in, grab them, and carelessly and safely toss them away — clueless that they themselves are exposed as reckless moments before they blow themselves up.
If the deep state really wanted to dismantle and disarm Donald Trump, it would have been wise first to carefully learn how he was constructed and wired — and thus why he was especially dangerous to them. Then to disarm him, elites would have had to offer superior agendas to his supporters, while engaging in reasoned debates and alternative visions — working with him when they found common and shared solutions, playing the loyal opposition when there did not.
Instead, the government, the political apparat, the media, tech, and entertainment conglomerates sought to reduce Trump to some monstrous entity deserving of hanging, stabbing, decapitation, incineration, and shooting. It sought to indict, impeach, and remove a sitting president, as the ancien régime rushed to break federal law with assumed ethical exemption — tapping, surveilling, lying, and leaking with impunity, assured that supposedly morally superior ends justified any means necessary to achieve them.
In other words, the custodians of the status quo arrogantly grabbed up the Trump land mine and thought they could easily toss it away — as it has blown them sky-high.
VICTOR DAVIS HANSON — NRO contributor Victor Davis Hanson is a senior fellow at the Hoover Institution and the author, most recently, of The Second World Wars: How the First Global Conflict Was Fought and Won.@vdhanson
1a) After Obama’s Iran Deal
President Trump on Tuesday withdrew the U.S. from the Iran nuclear deal, rightly calling it “defective at its core.” Yet he also offered Iran a chance to negotiate a better deal if it truly doesn’t want a nuclear weapon. Mr. Trump’s challenge now is to build a strategy and alliances to contain Iran until it accepts the crucial constraints that Barack Obama refused to impose.
1a) After Obama’s Iran Deal
Trump can exit because Obama never built U.S. support for the pact.
President Trump on Tuesday withdrew the U.S. from the Iran nuclear deal, rightly calling it “defective at its core.” Yet he also offered Iran a chance to negotiate a better deal if it truly doesn’t want a nuclear weapon. Mr. Trump’s challenge now is to build a strategy and alliances to contain Iran until it accepts the crucial constraints that Barack Obama refused to impose.
The Obama Administration spent years negotiating a lopsided pact that gave Tehran $100 billion of sanctions relief and a chance to revive its nuclear-weapons program after a 15-year waiting period. Instead of cutting off “all of Iran’s pathways to a bomb” as Mr. Obama claimed, the deal delayed the country’s entry into the nuclear club and gave the mullahs cash to fund their Middle East adventurism.
Mr. Trump outlined a more realistic strategy in October, promising to work with allies to close the deal’s loopholes, address Tehran’s missile and weapons proliferation, and “deny the regime all paths to a nuclear weapon.” An Iranian nuke would be a modest problem if Iran were a democracy. But the Islamic Republic is no India and has a four-decade history of oppressing its own people, taking foreign hostages and threatening neighbors with extinction.
State Department policy chief Brian Hook spent months shuttling between European capitals to get an agreement to strengthen inspections of suspected nuclear sites, stop Iran from developing ballistic missiles and eliminate the deal’s sunset provisions. Deal signatories China and Russia don’t share U.S. strategic goals in the Mideast, but the Trump Administration’s reasonable presumption is that Britain, France and Germany do.
Mr. Trump’s case for fixing the deal was bolstered last week when Israeli Prime Minister Benjamin Netanyahu revealed intelligence that Iran repeatedly lied to U.N. weapons inspectors about past nuclear activity. As Mr. Trump noted Tuesday, Tehran doesn’t allow inspectors access to many military sites. Mr. Netanyahu also revealed that Iran hid an extensive nuclear archive, which would still be secret if not for Israeli intelligence.
Regimes that have peaceful intentions don’t behave this way. When South Africa decided to denuclearize in the early 1990s, President F.W. de Klerk ordered the destruction of all sensitive technical and policy documents and gave U.N. inspectors “anytime, anywhere” access to inspect nuclear facilities. In Moammar Gadhafi’s case, U.S. officials physically removed sensitive nuclear-weapons documents, uranium and equipment from Libya.
Yet Britain, France and Germany waved away Israel’s intelligence, and European Union chief Federica Mogherini said the evidence doesn’t “put in question Iran’s compliance” with the nuclear deal. The Europeans may think they can maintain commercial dealings with Iran and wait out Mr. Trump through the 2020 election.
This is risky because Mr. Trump said in the next 90 to 180 days the U.S. will reimpose “the highest level of economic sanction” on Iran’s energy and automotive industries, ports, shipbuilding and more. The sanctions will cut Iran off from the global financial system even as the regime faces labor strikes and political protests amid a struggling economy. The country may find fewer buyers for its oil exports, and the rial has plunged.
Iran may try to drive a wedge between the U.S. and Europe to keep euros flowing to Tehran. But the U.S. has leverage. As Mr. Trump said Tuesday, “Any nation that helps Iran in its quest for nuclear weapons could also be strongly sanctioned by the United States.” Attempting to isolate the U.S. could present European companies with an eventual choice of doing business with the U.S. or Iran. The smarter play is for Europe to persuade Iran that to maintain commerce with the world it should renegotiate the pact.
***
Mr. Obama issued his own broadside Tuesday against withdrawal, but then he made it easier for Mr. Trump by never winning domestic support for the deal. He refused to submit it for Senate approval as a treaty, which would have had the force of law. Mr. Trump is walking away from Mr. Obama’s personal commitment to Iran, not an American commitment.
But this is also a warning to Mr. Trump that his Administration has more work to do to execute his Iran strategy. This means building bipartisan support in Congress for sanctions; diplomacy to deter Iran’s adventures in Syria and elsewhere in the Middle East; and more diplomacy with Europe to fix the nuclear deal’s fatal weaknesses.
Perhaps the best part of Mr. Trump’s remarks came at the end when he spoke to “the long-suffering people of Iran.” He said “the people of America stand with you” and made the offer of better relations and a more prosperous future if their leaders will shed their destructive nuclear and imperial dreams. Political change in Tehran remains the best hope for a non-nuclear Iran.
1b) Trump Rolls Dice With Iran Pullout
Move represents a series of wagers with a number of downsides to losing
More precisely, the move represents a series of gambles—bets that Iran’s leaders, its economy and its people, as well as America’s allies and even the leader of North Korea, will react the way the president hopes. Mr. Trump may well win those bets, but the dangers that would accompany a loss are quite high.
The core of the president’s gamble is that a renewal of full-bore economic sanctions on Iran will be enough to compel its leaders back to the table to renegotiate the nuclear deal completed during President Barack Obama’s term. In fact, Mr. Trump flatly predicted Iran’s leaders will do exactly that.
Alternatively, his calculation appears to be that a resumption of full-bore American pressure will so disrupt a weak Iranian economy—already reeling from rising prices, a falling currency and a long drought—that the result will be growing dissatisfaction and internal unrest that threatens the very survival of the regime.
The further gamble is that U.S. allies in France, Britain and Germany, who have pleaded for a different course from the president, will cooperate in a new wave of economic sanctions rather than rebel and move out to construct a new relationship of their own with Iran. Such European defiance could undercut the pressure Mr. Trump is trying to create and ultimately isolate the U.S. rather than Iran.Mr. Trump didn’t say he wants his move to bring regime change in Tehran, but with his references to the “murderous” government in Iran and his declaration that “the future of Iran belongs to its people,” he walked to the edge of calling for it. The risk, though, is that the Iranian people instead rally around their government now that it faces a renewed threat from America.
The president’s pledge to impose sanctions on any nation that helps Iran targets America’s allies as much as the regime in Tehran, and could produce a sanctions fight not just with Iran, but also with allies.
In addition, Mr. Trump is taking a chance that Iran won’t simply respond by resuming full-bore nuclear activity, turning back on the hundreds of centrifuges it still possesses to produce the enriched uranium that the West fears would put it on the path toward nuclear-weapons capability. European leaders are urging the Iranians to react calmly, without precipitous action, but hard-liners in Tehran may instead seize the moment to revive actions they never wanted to halt in the first place.
Above all, Mr. Trump’s decision represents a gamble that the heightened tensions with Iran that now are at hand won’t escalate into conflict—with the U.S., with Israel or with Saudi Arabia.Mr. Trump is further betting that North Korean leader Kim Jong Un, with whom he meets in a matter of weeks, will take away from his announcement the lesson the president wants—which is that an Iran-style deal that slows rather than eliminates Pyongyang’s nuclear program won’t be deemed sufficient. The risk is that North Korea will take away an alternative lesson, which is that the U.S. can’t be counted on to live up to deals its leaders make.
“The worst case is that Iran restarts selected nuclear activities, and either Israel or the U.S. determines that is unacceptable, uses military force and Iran responds in any number of ways around the region or around the world with all its tools,” said Richard Haass, president of the Council on Foreign Relations. Those tools, he notes, include terrorism and cyberwarfare.
Indeed, after Mr. Trump’s move, “the ball is now essentially in Iran’s court as to how this crisis evolves,” says Suzanne Maloney, an Iran expert at the Brookings Institution. “I think the likely short-term approach will seek to maximize whatever diplomatic and economic restitution may be on offer from Europe.”
Finally, Mr. Trump is gambling that his tough line on Iran will convince others in the region that the U.S. will remain adamant and unyielding in its insistence that Iran won’t ever be allowed to possess nuclear weapons. The president said that will help ensure that others in the region don’t set out to acquire nuclear weapons of their own, and seek to beat Iran to the punch as they do so.But, she adds, “Tehran has a wide range of options available for demonstrating that its leverage on the ground in conflicts in Yemen, Syria, Iraq, and elsewhere across the region is at least as formidable as U.S. economic leverage.”
The risk there, of course, is that the reverse could happen. Iran could now respond with a burst of new nuclear activity, Mr. Haass says, prompting Saudi Arabia and potentially others to break away from the global Nuclear Nonproliferation Treaty and begin their own march toward nuclear arms.
+++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++
2)A Courageous Trump Call on a Lousy Iran Deal
3) Melania Just Fired Them ALL! ‘That Is Not Acceptable Here – I Won’t Allow It!’
First lady Melania Trump just sent them packing! She released multiple people from their positions as she would not allow taxpayers to be ripped off for jobs that were simply not needed – quite contrary to the former first lady, Michelle Obama. While Melania Trump takes on bigger roles and a more active schedule, she has proven herself to spend a lot less than what Obama did. This news comes about as Melania Trump runs one of the lightest East Wings in recent history.
Michelle Obama was reported to have 16 people working under her, being paid a combined $1.24 million. Melania Trump’s staff is only four people who earn a combined $486,700, much less in comparison to Obama. Knowing that Melania Trump refuses to hire 12 extra people to do jobs that can be handled by herself and four others is a wonderful bit of information as it reduces wasteful spending of the taxpayer money.
Not carrying the extra staff for jobs that can be handled by fewer people is a step in the right direction towards reducing the amount of money spent by the administration and shows that Melania cares to be mindful in her position as the first lady. That’s an enjoyable quality for a first lady to have as it spreads a message about being responsible and not overspending.
Fox News reported more on Melania’s smaller staff: “The details are contained in an annual report the White House sends to Congress showing the names, positions and salaries of all its personnel. Both the Obama and Trump administrations acknowledged several additional staffers beyond those listed in the report with the term “first lady” in their titles. But even counting all those employees — 24 for Michelle Obama and nine for the current first lady — Melania Trump’s office is relatively small.
It’s an approach her spokeswoman says is intentional.
“As with all things that she does, she is being very deliberate in her hiring, focusing on quality over quantity,” communications director Stephanie Grisham said in an email. “It is important to her that the team is a good fit for what she wants to accomplish as first lady, and that everyone works well together. She also wants to be mindful and responsible when it comes to taxpayer money.”
While the 2009 annual report listed 16 staffers for Michelle Obama, her press secretary said at the time the staff actually included 24 people. A 2009 FactCheck.org story said Obama’s 24 aides might have broken records.
“That may indeed be the largest of any first lady, but Hillary Clinton, with 19 staffers, and Laura Bush with at least 18 and perhaps more, weren’t far behind,” FactCheck.org said.
Grisham told Fox News this week there are nine people working in the East Wing under Melania Trump, a few more than listed in the annual report.
According to those personnel reports, Melania Trump’s staffers include a chief of staff, a communications director, a deputy chief of staff and a deputy director of advance.
Michelle Obama’s staff included those same positions and a slew of others: additional press aides, a director of policy and projects, a personal aide, a traveling aide and a director of correspondence.
Michelle Obama’s office did not return a request for comment.”
Melania and Donald Trump will surely be criticized for this one way or another. The critics will say that Melania fired people instead of being resourceful and saving money for the White House and their Presidency. While every President and first lady face critics, there has surely been an insufferable and increased amount of criticism has been levied towards the Trump family, with even Barron facing his own fierce barrage of harsh commentary from spiteful people who dislike the Trump family living in the White House.
Donald and Melania work through the criticism, doing things to make many Americans in hopes that they’re constantly doing right by the citizens. They will always face criticism from those who oppose their leadership, even though Trump won the Presidency in a fair election well over one year ago.
3a)
Before the massive growth of our welfare state, private charity was the sole option for an individual or family facing insurmountable financial difficulties or other challenges.
2)A Courageous Trump Call on a Lousy Iran Deal
+++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++By Bret StephensPresident Trump said pulling out of the Iran nuclear deal sends a message that “the United States no longer makes empty threats.”Of all the arguments for the Trump administration to honor the nuclear deal with Iran, none was more risible than the claim that we gave our word as a country to keep it.“Our”?The Obama administration refused to submit the deal to Congress as a treaty, knowing it would never get two-thirds of the Senate to go along. Just 21 percent of Americans approved of the deal at the time it went through, against 49 percent who did not, according to a Pew poll. The agreement “passed” on the strength of a 42-vote Democratic filibuster, against bipartisan, majority opposition.“The Joint Comprehensive Plan of Action (J.C.P.O.A.) is not a treaty or an executive agreement, and it is not a signed document,” Julia Frifield, then the assistant secretary of state for legislative affairs, wrote then-Representative Mike Pompeo in November 2015, referring to the deal by its formal name. It’s questionable whether the deal has any legal force at all.Build on political sand; get washed away by the next electoral wave. Such was the fate of the ill-judged and ill-founded J.C.P.O.A., which Donald Trump killed on Tuesday by refusing to again waive sanctions on the Islamic Republic. He was absolutely right to do so — assuming, that is, serious thought has been given to what comes next.In the weeks leading to Tuesday’s announcement, some of the same people who previously claimed the deal was the best we could possibly hope for suddenly became inventive in proposing means to fix it. This involved suggesting side deals between Washington and European capitals to impose stiffer penalties on Tehran for its continued testing of ballistic missiles — more than 20 since the deal came into effect — and its increasingly aggressive regional behavior.But the problem with this approach is that it only treats symptoms of a problem for which the J.C.P.O.A. is itself a major cause. The deal weakened U.N. prohibitions on Iran’s testing of ballistic missiles, which cannot be reversed without Russian and Chinese consent. That won’t happen.The easing of sanctions also gave Tehran additional financial means with which to fund its depredations in Syria and its militant proxies in Yemen, Lebanon and elsewhere. Any effort to counter Iran on the ground in these places would mean fighting the very forces we are effectively feeding. Why not just stop the feeding?Apologists for the deal answer that the price is worth paying because Iran has put on hold much of its production of nuclear fuel for the next several years. Yet even now Iran is under looser nuclear strictures than North Korea, and would have been allowed to enrich as much material as it liked once the deal expired. That’s nuts.Apologists also claim that, with Trump’s decision, Tehran will simply restart its enrichment activities on an industrial scale. Maybe it will, forcing a crisis that could end with U.S. or Israeli strikes on Iran’s nuclear sites. But that would be stupid, something the regime emphatically isn’t. More likely, it will take symbolic steps to restart enrichment, thereby implying a threat without making good on it. What the regime wants is a renegotiation, not a reckoning.Why? Even with the sanctions relief, the Iranian economy hangs by a thread: The Wall Street Journal on Sunday reported “hundreds of recent outbreaks of labor unrest in Iran, an indication of deepening discord over the nation’s economic troubles.” This week, the rial hit a record low of 67,800 to the dollar; one member of the Iranian Parliament estimated $30 billion of capital outflows in recent months. That’s real money for a country whose gross domestic product barely matches that of Boston.The regime might calculate that a strategy of confrontation with the West could whip up useful nationalist fervors. But it would have to tread carefully: Ordinary Iranians are already furious that their government has squandered the proceeds of the nuclear deal on propping up the Assad regime. The conditions that led to the so-called Green movement of 2009 are there once again. Nor will it help Iran if it tries to start a war with Israel and comes out badly bloodied.All this means the administration is in a strong position to negotiate a viable deal. But it missed an opportunity last month when it failed to deliver a crippling blow to Bashar al-Assad, Iran’s puppet in Syria, for his use of chemical weapons. Trump’s appeals in his speech to the Iranian people also sounded hollow from a president who isn’t exactly a tribune of liberalism and has disdained human rights as a tool of U.S. diplomacy. And the U.S. will need to mend fences with its European partners to pursue a coordinated diplomatic approach.The goal is to put Iran’s rulers to a fundamental choice. They can opt to have a functioning economy, free of sanctions and open to investment, at the price of permanently, verifiably and irreversibly forgoing a nuclear option and abandoning their support for terrorists. Or they can pursue their nuclear ambitions at the cost of economic ruin and possible war. But they are no longer entitled to Barack Obama’s sweetheart deal of getting sanctions lifted first, retaining their nuclear options for later, and sponsoring terrorism throughout.Trump’s courageous decision to withdraw from the nuclear deal will clarify the stakes for Tehran. Now we’ll see whether the administration is capable of following through.
3) Melania Just Fired Them ALL! ‘That Is Not Acceptable Here – I Won’t Allow It!’
First lady Melania Trump just sent them packing! She released multiple people from their positions as she would not allow taxpayers to be ripped off for jobs that were simply not needed – quite contrary to the former first lady, Michelle Obama. While Melania Trump takes on bigger roles and a more active schedule, she has proven herself to spend a lot less than what Obama did. This news comes about as Melania Trump runs one of the lightest East Wings in recent history.
Michelle Obama was reported to have 16 people working under her, being paid a combined $1.24 million. Melania Trump’s staff is only four people who earn a combined $486,700, much less in comparison to Obama. Knowing that Melania Trump refuses to hire 12 extra people to do jobs that can be handled by herself and four others is a wonderful bit of information as it reduces wasteful spending of the taxpayer money.
Not carrying the extra staff for jobs that can be handled by fewer people is a step in the right direction towards reducing the amount of money spent by the administration and shows that Melania cares to be mindful in her position as the first lady. That’s an enjoyable quality for a first lady to have as it spreads a message about being responsible and not overspending.
Fox News reported more on Melania’s smaller staff: “The details are contained in an annual report the White House sends to Congress showing the names, positions and salaries of all its personnel. Both the Obama and Trump administrations acknowledged several additional staffers beyond those listed in the report with the term “first lady” in their titles. But even counting all those employees — 24 for Michelle Obama and nine for the current first lady — Melania Trump’s office is relatively small.
It’s an approach her spokeswoman says is intentional.
“As with all things that she does, she is being very deliberate in her hiring, focusing on quality over quantity,” communications director Stephanie Grisham said in an email. “It is important to her that the team is a good fit for what she wants to accomplish as first lady, and that everyone works well together. She also wants to be mindful and responsible when it comes to taxpayer money.”
While the 2009 annual report listed 16 staffers for Michelle Obama, her press secretary said at the time the staff actually included 24 people. A 2009 FactCheck.org story said Obama’s 24 aides might have broken records.
“That may indeed be the largest of any first lady, but Hillary Clinton, with 19 staffers, and Laura Bush with at least 18 and perhaps more, weren’t far behind,” FactCheck.org said.
Grisham told Fox News this week there are nine people working in the East Wing under Melania Trump, a few more than listed in the annual report.
According to those personnel reports, Melania Trump’s staffers include a chief of staff, a communications director, a deputy chief of staff and a deputy director of advance.
Michelle Obama’s staff included those same positions and a slew of others: additional press aides, a director of policy and projects, a personal aide, a traveling aide and a director of correspondence.
Michelle Obama’s office did not return a request for comment.”
Melania and Donald Trump will surely be criticized for this one way or another. The critics will say that Melania fired people instead of being resourceful and saving money for the White House and their Presidency. While every President and first lady face critics, there has surely been an insufferable and increased amount of criticism has been levied towards the Trump family, with even Barron facing his own fierce barrage of harsh commentary from spiteful people who dislike the Trump family living in the White House.
Donald and Melania work through the criticism, doing things to make many Americans in hopes that they’re constantly doing right by the citizens. They will always face criticism from those who oppose their leadership, even though Trump won the Presidency in a fair election well over one year ago.
3a)
The Unintended Consequences of the Welfare State on the Human Spirit
Before the massive growth of our welfare state, private charity was the sole option for an individual or family facing insurmountable financial difficulties or other challenges.
How do we know that? There is no history of Americans dying on the streets because they could not find food or basic medical assistance. Respecting the biblical commandment to honor thy father and mother, children took care of their elderly or infirm parents. Family members and the local church also helped those who had fallen on hard times.
During the late 19th and early 20th centuries, charities started playing a major role. In 1887, religious leaders founded the Charity Organization Society, which became the first United Way organization. In 1904, Big Brothers Big Sisters of America started helping at-risk youths reach their full potential. In 1913, the American Cancer Society, dedicated to curing and eliminating cancer, was formed. With their millions of dollars, industrial giants such as Andrew Carnegie and John D. Rockefeller created our nation’s first philanthropic organizations.
Generosity has always been a part of the American genome. Alexis de Tocqueville, a French civil servant, made a nine-month visit to our country in 1831 and 1832, ostensibly to study our prisons. Instead, his visit resulted in his writing “Democracy in America,” one of the most influential books about our nation.
Tocqueville didn’t use the term “philanthropy,” but he wrote extensively about how Americans love to form all kinds of nongovernmental associations to help one another. These associations include professional, social, civic, and other volunteer organizations seeking to serve the public good and improve the quality of human lives.
The bottom line is that we Americans are the most generous people in the world, according to the new Almanac of American Philanthropy—something we should be proud of.
Before the welfare state, charity embodied both a sense of gratitude on the behalf of the recipient and magnanimity on the behalves of donors. There was a sense of civility by the recipients. They did not feel that they were owed, were entitled to, or had a right to the largesse of the donor.
Recipients probably felt that if they weren’t civil and didn’t express their gratitude, more assistance wouldn’t be forthcoming. In other words, they were reluctant to bite the hand that helped them.
With churches and other private agencies helping, people were much likelier to help themselves and less likely to engage in self-destructive behavior. Part of the message of charitable groups was: “We’ll help you if you help yourself.”
Enter the federal government. Civility and gratitude toward one’s benefactors are no longer required in the welfare state. In fact, one can be arrogant and hostile toward the “donors” (taxpayers), as well as the civil servants who dish out the benefits. The handouts that recipients get are no longer called charity; they’re called entitlements—as if what is received were earned.
There is virtually no material poverty in the U.S. Eighty percent of households the Census Bureau labels as poor have air conditioning; nearly three-quarters have a car or truck, and 31 percent have two or more. Two-thirds have cable or satellite TV. Half have at least one computer. Forty-two percent own their homes.
What we have in our nation is not material poverty but dependency and poverty of the spirit, with people making unwise choices and leading pathological lives, aided and abetted by the welfare state.
Part of this pathological lifestyle is reflected in family structure. According to the 1938 Encyclopaedia of the Social Sciences, that year 11 percent of black children and 3 percent of white children were born to unwed mothers. Today it’s respectively 75 percent and 30 percent.
There are very little guts in the political arena to address the downside of the welfare state. To do so risks a politician’s being labeled as racist, sexist, uncaring, and insensitive. That means today’s dependency is likely to become permanent.
++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++
No comments:
Post a Comment