+++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++
I am growing very weary of the liberal politically correct morons fallaciously posturing our immigration enigma to what they believe may be some electoral advantage...two weeks ago a prominent liberal agitator on PBS proclaimed that, in his view and because of demonstrable recent policy and financial successes, the last opportunity to displace Trump was to stir the pot about illegal immigrant children being separated from their parents. And, behold, the liberals have leveraged this fallacious issue with a vengeance and the compliant press have jumped in with both feet...supporting this illogical and non fact-based position...the truth is that the children in questions' parents have broken the law...and while their legal debacle is sorted out they are rightly incarcerated...no reasonable and prudent individual would support having children jailed in the same environment as their law breaking parents...therefore...at great expense to the American taxpayer, holding facilities have been developed to house these children while the plight of their parents is adjudicated...it has been duly verified that these holding camps provide an environment that is far superior to anything that many of these children have ever experienced...medical and dental care, training on how to be clean, pristine and orderly living conditions, educational opportunities, hygiene awareness, development of social and work ethic awareness and the beginning of the honing of the skills for achieving a life that they have never dreamed of...they are provided this advantage which is vastly superior to anything available to our lost youth in the ghettos of Chicago, Detroit, Baltimore etc. Furthermore, it is highly unlikely that any of the children are separated from their parents for over 30 days. Yet the press and our Charlatan body politic has postured this situation as children being "ripped" from the arms of their parents. The bottom line is that many of these illegal immigrant parents are using their children to gain admittance to our country and our welfare system. Factually, the handling of their minor children is no different...and probably demonstrably better, than that of law breakers in our own country...the kids are not expected to go to jail with their parents!
With all the noise surrounding this issue does anyone think any of the political and bureaucratic class cares about family separation except for political leverage? If they did, they’d be upset about the collapse of the American family, which is measurable and real. They’re not. They welcome that collapse, because strong families are an impediment to their political power.
Trump is being hit by democrats and many republicans for "separating families." But when do we re-think our family destroying welfare state that has incentivized women to marry the gov't and men to abandon their moral and financial responsibility?
++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++
writes articles about local executives:
++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++
Liberals love causes, particularly ones that portray them as compassionate and caring because they are basically "bleeder" types. They look at the world from an emotional view but seldom connect economics factors. They are always at war with something. ie. "War on Poverty" and damn the cost and results, etc.
What I find contradictory is they support abortion yet go bananas over illegal immigration and enforcing laws they actually passed which lead to separation of children from families..
This makes them hypocrites in my eyes but then I am not a PC type. They are now at war with Trump because they claim he favors a policy that separates children from parents and the fake news mass media is right behind and supporting their false claims. Why? Because demonizing is good politics and makes for emotional optics. Republicans do not know how to deflect criticism and/or respond effectively. They generally panic and fly off in all directions when they are attacked. They just cannot handle being falsely smeared. (See 1 below.)
And:
While I am being "F'ing"non_PC let's take a trip down memory lane. After all, if a great liberal like Robert De Nero can, why can't I? (See 1a below.)
++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++
While Liberal, left wing Democrats are concerned about illegal immigrants and their children they do not seem to care much about China's expanding fleet.
Sent to me by a dear friend, a fellow memo reader and retired general officer. (See 2 below.)
And:
China's intellectual Property theft. (See 2a below.)
+++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++
Petraeus on Iran. (See 3 below.)
+++++++++++++++++++++++
The 'State Department Establishment" hates Trump's Ambassador to Israel for a variety of reasons. He is not one of them, he has been effective and correct and he has a positive view towards our relationship with Israel.
Our State Department is inhabited by a network of good old boys who , when it comes to critical junctures, have been mostly wrong, all attended the same universities and are reluctant to think outside the box. Our diplomats were frightened by Reagan and were suspect about his visit to Russia and negotiated with Gorbachev. Nixon opened the way to China, not our State Department. The State Department despises Trump. They supported Obama's distaste of Netanyahu. They fear boldness and their list of misjudgments is endless. (See 4 below.)
While I am on the subject of an important federal department I want to walk you through why I am cynical and suspect of bureaucracies
Bureaucrats live in a pyramidal world and their funding correlates with more responsibilities and more numbers over which they have control. Thus, the more they grow and increase their power the more funding etc.
Thus, in a pyramid where is the width, the numbers? At the bottom of course not at the top. This is why it is critical for government to dumb down everything it touches.
Government focus is on expansion and growth. Virtually everything government touches it ultimately ruins - education, health care, citizen relationships etc. The most successful aspect of government is the military because it is autocratic and not democratic. Cynical, yes but mostly correct I would argue.
I am from the government and I am here to help you is an oxymoron.
++++++++++++++++++++++++++
Dick
+++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++
1) 2014 photos - locked-up immigrant children
Several 2014 photos of detained immigrant children resurfaced on Twitter over the weekend and went viral.
Obama administration officials are rushing to explain photos from 2014 that went viral this weekend showing locked-up immigrant children
Former Obama administration officials tried to explain the context behind the photos, which appeared to show migrant kids locked up in cages.
The former Obama speechwriter Jon Favreau had shared the images on Twitter, mistakenly believing they were taken during Donald Trump's presidency.
The former officials doubled down on their criticisms of Trump's immigration policies, and said the 2014 photos showed unaccompanied children the government had been attempting to place with family members. Several former Obama administration officials took to social media and news outlets on Tuesday to explain a gallery of years-old photos that showed immigrant children sleeping in shoddy conditions at a government-run holding facility in Arizona.
The images, which were first published by the Associated Press in 2014, resurfaced over the weekend for reasons that remain unclear, and quickly prompted viral outrage on Twitter. One particularly disturbing image showed two children sleeping on mattresses on the floor inside what appeared to be a cage.
A number of prominent liberals — and even a former Obama administration official — shared the photos in outrage, mistakenly believing they depicted the Trump administration's treatment of immigrant children who were forcibly separated from their parents.
Jon Favreau, who worked as a speechwriter for former President Barack Obama, tweeted, "This is happening right now, and the only debate that matters is how we force our government to get these kids back to their families as fast as humanly possible."
1a) The "F" Word
There are only 11 times in history where the"F"word has been considered acceptable for use.
They are as follows:
11. "What the @#$% do you mean, we are sinking?"
-- Capt. E.J. Smith of RMS Titanic, 1912
10. "What the @#$% was that?"
-- Mayor Of Hiroshima, 1945
9 "Where did all those @#$%ing Indians come from?"
-- George Custer, 1877
-- Capt. E.J. Smith of RMS Titanic, 1912
10. "What the @#$% was that?"
-- Mayor Of Hiroshima, 1945
9 "Where did all those @#$%ing Indians come from?"
-- George Custer, 1877
8 "Any @#$%ing idiot could understand that."-- Albert Einstein, 1938
7 "It does so @#$%ing look like her!"
-- Picasso, 1926
-- Picasso, 1926
6 "How the @#$% did you work that out?"
-- Pythagoras, 126 BC
-- Pythagoras, 126 BC
5 "You want WHAT on the @#$%ing ceiling?"
-- Michelangelo, 1566
-- Michelangelo, 1566
4 "Where the @#$% are we?"
-- Amelia Earhart, 1937
-- Amelia Earhart, 1937
3 "Scattered @#$%ing showers, my ass!"
-- Noah, 4314 BC
-- Noah, 4314 BC
2 "Aw c’mon Monica. Who the @#$% is going to find out?"
-- Bill Clinton, 1998
-- Bill Clinton, 1998
1 "There is no @#$%ing way Trump will ever become President"
-- Hilary Clinton 2016
2) I'll bet this keeps many of our Flag officers awake at night, among many other concerns. Witness the weapons of war being forged against us. It seems the Chicoms have learned a lesson from the early American Admiral Alfred Thayer Mahan relative to Sea Power & history, in addition to stealing much of our leading edge technology. Although this carrier lack catapults, which is a double-edged sword, their next carrier will employ the electromagnetic technology that’s now plaguing the new US carriers. China is rapidly becoming a world sea power w/an impressive Blue Water Navy. Just how long can we compete when we’re already burdened w/a $21 trillion debt that’s mushrooming higher? (Note the colored vests worn by flight deck personnel correspond to the same specialties on the decks of US carriers. Wonder where they got so many things so similar to our Navy?) So, how long do you think it’ll be before we see a task force like this 12mi off our west coast? Make no mistake: the Chicoms have a long-term 100yr plan to own the entire Pacific Rim. They’re actively trying to annex the entire South China Sea & control her invaluable shipping lanes thru which an outsized & disproportionate volume of global trade now travels. Why else would they be spending hundreds of billions of dollars to build dozens of militarized islands there? The Red Dragon is rising, & neither our nation nor our Navy is prepared for the challenges we’re about to have to face down—politically, economically, & militarily.
I was unable, or do not know how, to copy the accompanying video.
2a) Why Tariffs on Chinese Goods Make Sense
By Scott Paul
The Trump administration has released a list of tariffs on Chinese goods that have benefited from intellectual property theft, totaling $50 billion. The products range from flat-screen TVs to aircraft parts.
This has elicited condemnations from well-heeled editorial boards in New York and Washington, who call them hasty, ill-conceived, haphazard, and guaranteed to invite an escalating response from the Chinese government.
This has elicited condemnations from well-heeled editorial boards in New York and Washington, who call them hasty, ill-conceived, haphazard, and guaranteed to invite an escalating response from the Chinese government.
But they will all agree to the same caveat: State-sponsored Chinese actors have indeed walked off with an incredible amount of hard-earned American IP.
Rather than continuing to ignore the problem, this administration is acting aggressively to stop it. It’s an instance when the White House should actually be applauded.
Let’s consider a few numbers.
IP-intensive industries in the United States support approximately 45.5 million jobs, represent more than 39 percent of GDP, and account for 52 percent of our exports. The administration’s Section 301 report, the basis for these tariffs, found “China to be the worst infringer of American IP, stemming primarily from Chinese policies and laws.” Altogether, Chinese theft alone costs our economy between $225 billion and $600 billion annually. Put another way: We’ve lost more than $1.2 trillion to it since 2013.
The transfer of IP has advanced China's ability to be a manufacturing powerhouse and has expanded its economic and military capabilities. And it must be considered in the context of our bilateral trading relationship. We have amassed more than $4.3 trillion in merchandise trade deficits with China since 2001. A substantial portion of that is the result of China's protectionist market policies – of which IP theft is part and parcel.
This is no secret; it’s been a problem about which business chambers have complained for years. The Obama administration was very public in its attempts to dissuade its Chinese counterparts from either requiring American companies to enter joint-partnerships with Chinese firms (and hand over proprietary knowledge) as a condition of market access, or from its outright support of China-based hacking groups. Those attempts ranged from a signed agreement and a Rose Garden ceremony for President Obama and Xi Jinping, to the 2014 indictment of People’s Liberation Army hackers.
But while such carrots and sticks slowed the cybertheft attempts, they didn’t stop. And they’ve resumed their pace again.
We need to be honest with ourselves: Now is the time for more stick. The only progress the U.S. has ever made with serial trade cheats has been the result of extraordinary pressure applied not only by the administration but by Congress, including – but not limited to – the threat of tariffs. Beijing allowing the renminbi to rise after the U.S. Senate passed currency manipulation legislation in 2011 springs to mind.
The tariff regimen President Trump has unveiled will help to restore some balance with China, as well as to re-create an ecosystem to innovate, design, and make products here that we can sell abroad.
We need that balance, because it’s beginning to tip the other way. We can’t reasonably assume that in the future high-value and strategically important products will be manufactured in America if the underlying IP has been rendered useless by China.
As for the American critics of these tariffs, they’re welcome to present a viable, competing plan that won’t take years to come to fruition. The U.S. economy is currently strong and unemployment is low, but a long-term economic disaster is in the cards if we continue to allow our innovation base to be hollowed out by this program of state-sponsored theft. Advanced industries such as robotics, nanotechnology, and additive manufacturing could be the next victims — before they even gain a substantial foothold in America.
The Trump administration’s Section 301 tariffs are overdue and welcome. If you want to change a bad actor’s habits, then force them to the bargaining table.
+++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++3) Petraeus: Withdrawing From Iran Nuclear Deal Puts ‘Greater Pressure’ on Tehran
Former CIA director says he backs Trump's decision to leave accord
Former CIA Director and retired four-star Gen. David Petraeus said Sunday that he supports President Donald Trump's decision to withdraw the U.S. from the Iran nuclear deal.
Petraeus, who served as CIA chief during the Obama administration, made his comments at an event in Israel, arguing that leaving the accord puts greater pressure on Iran, the Jerusalem Post reported.
At a conference about national security and cyber issues at Tel Aviv University, Petraeus said he welcomes pulling out of the deal in order to better influence Iran—and not just regarding nuclear issues.
"[Withdrawing] will see much greater pressure on Iran, not just in areas covered by the nuclear deal, but also with regard to its missile program and Iran's malign activities … in the rest of the Middle East," Petraeus said.
Trump announced on May 8 that the U.S. would leave the nuclear deal, saying that the agreement is "defective at its core" and would lead to Iran being on the cusp of obtaining a nuclear weapon. The nuclear agreement, signed in July 2015, places restrictions on Tehran's nuclear program, many of which expire in about a decade, in exchange for large-scale sanctions relief.
After withdrawing from the deal, Trump reimposed sanctions on Iran and denounced the Islamic Republic's destabilizing activities in the Middle East.
Withdrawing from the deal led to an outcry from many observers in the media and several Democrats, including former President Barack Obama and senior officials in his administration.
Petraeus led the CIA in 2011 and 2012. He resigned in November 2012 following a scandal involving an extramarital affair.
At Sunday's event, the retired Army general was asked what pieces of advice he would give Trump regarding security issues, and he said to focus on America's critical infrastructure.
"I think I'd just limit it to one, and I would focus on the threats to America's critical infrastructure," he said. "My concern is the concept of idea of a cyber weapon of mass destruction but in the hands of an entity that's very hard to deter."
This is not the first time that Petraeus has expressed doubt about the efficacy of the Iran nuclear deal. Before Trump was elected, Petraeus said in 2015 that the deal could lead to further malign activities by Iran in the Middle East.
+++
4)
The foreign-policy establishment and the mainstream media agree: David Friedman isn’t their kind of US ambassador to Israel.
He’s just too pro-Israel for their taste.
Friedman has been taking a pounding from the old hands who have represented Washington in the Middle East and their media echo chamber ever since President Trump named his former bankruptcy attorney to the post. While there’s nothing new or unusual about presidents naming their friends and donors to ambassadorial posts, Israel has always been an exception.
The primary responsibility of US ambassadors, other than speaking up for America’s interests and values, is to foster good relations between Washington and wherever it is they’ve been posted. Not so with Israel.
Every one of Friedman’s predecessors was either a career foreign-service officer or a product of foreign-policy think tanks who all saw Israel as a problematic friend that, regardless of its virtues, needed to be brought to heel in order to foster peace.
They agreed that the special relationship with the Jewish state was an irritant to relations with the Arab and Islamic world, and it could only be resolved by forging a land-for-peace deal that created an independent Palestinian state.
That’s why all previous US ambassadors — including those who were Jewish — acted more like imperial proconsuls who were there to give orders to a client state rather than a conventional envoy tasked with fostering good relations between the two governments.
So it’s easy to understand why current and foreign US diplomats have been up in arms about Friedman. As Politico noted last week, the State Department isn’t used to having an ambassador there who pushes back against US criticisms of Israel rather than leading the charge against the Jewish state’s government.
They were infuriated by Friedman’s success in helping to persuade Trump to finally recognize that Jerusalem is Israel’s capital. They were also shocked when Friedman outmaneuvered former Secretary of State Rex Tillerson, who had hoped to postpone the actual moving of the embassy to Jerusalem from Tel Aviv. Friedman rightly saw no reason to wait years until a new embassy building could be built when all that had to be done was to change the designation of the US consulate to the holy city.
Friedman’s vocal support for Israel’s defense of its border with Gaza during the “March of Return” — when violence organized by Hamas led to the deaths of dozens of those trying to cross into the Jewish state to create mayhem — was considered inappropriate by other diplomats. The foreign press was also outraged by his comments that noted most of the media coverage of Israel is biased against the Jewish state.
Friedman was right about the embassy and the media coverage, but it’s also true that his statements reflect the fact that the Long Island native is a lifelong pro-Israel activist — and a supporter of the Israeli right, at that — rather than his current job status. Yet the question is not whether his behavior was wrong — it wasn’t — but if having an ambassador to Israel who loves the Jewish state so much undermines the chances for peace.
Were the Palestinian Authority or its Hamas rivals interested in a two-state solution (or any kind of peace deal with Israel), the answer might be maybe. But even as the Trump administration prepares its own peace plan, it’s clear this isn’t the case.
The PA and its leader, Mahmoud Abbas, continue to spew anti-Semitism and make clear they aren’t interested in anything that’ll end the conflict or recognize Israel’s legitimacy, no matter where its borders are drawn. And Hamas is still pushing for “return” — which is to say, Israel’s destruction.
In the absence of a peace partner, Friedman’s pro-Israel boosterism is not only not an obstacle to peace, it’s a refreshing reminder to the State Department that it should care more about supporting its sole democratic ally in the region and holding the Palestinians accountable for their behavior and less about bludgeoning Prime Minister Benjamin Netanyahu to make concessions to those who desire Israel’s destruction.
While no one is used to having an ambassador there who is a truth-teller about the conflict, Friedman deserves credit, not censure.
Jonathan S. Tobin is editor in chief of JNS.org and a contributor to National Review.
++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++
No comments:
Post a Comment