Time for some humor, my kind:
Subject: Texting
Subject: Texting
From a teacher -- short and to the point
In the world of hi-tech gadgetry, I've noticed that more and more
people who send text messages and emails have long forgotten the art
of capital letters.
For those of you who fall into this category, please take note of
the following statement:
"Capitalization is the difference between helping your Uncle Jack
off a horse and helping your uncle jack off a horse."
Is everybody clear on that?
And:
Of course high technology has its flaws:
"Hi, Fred, this is Richard, next door. I’ve got a confession to make. I’ve been riddled with guilt for a few months and have been trying to get up the courage to tell you face-to-face. At least I’m telling you in this text and I can’t live with myself a minute longer without you knowing about this. The truth is that when you’re not around I’ve been sharing your wife, day and night. In fact, probably much more than you. I haven’t been getting it at home recently and I know that that’s no excuse. The temptation was just too great. I can’t live with the guilt and hope you’ll accept my sincere apology and forgive me. Please suggest a fee for usage and I’ll pay you. Regards, Richard
In the world of hi-tech gadgetry, I've noticed that more and more
people who send text messages and emails have long forgotten the art
of capital letters.
For those of you who fall into this category, please take note of
the following statement:
"Capitalization is the difference between helping your Uncle Jack
off a horse and helping your uncle jack off a horse."
Is everybody clear on that?
And:
Of course high technology has its flaws:
"Hi, Fred, this is Richard, next door. I’ve got a confession to make. I’ve been riddled with guilt for a few months and have been trying to get up the courage to tell you face-to-face. At least I’m telling you in this text and I can’t live with myself a minute longer without you knowing about this. The truth is that when you’re not around I’ve been sharing your wife, day and night. In fact, probably much more than you. I haven’t been getting it at home recently and I know that that’s no excuse. The temptation was just too great. I can’t live with the guilt and hope you’ll accept my sincere apology and forgive me. Please suggest a fee for usage and I’ll pay you. Regards, Richard
Neighbour’s response:Fred, feeling so angered and betrayed, grabbed his gun and shot Richard, killing him. He went back home and poured himself a stiff drink and sat down on the sofa. Fred then looked at his phone and discovered a second text message from Richard.
Second text message:
Hi, Fred. Richard here again. Sorry about the typo on my last text. I expect you figured it out and noticed that the damned Auto-Correct had changed “wi-fi” to “wife.” Technology, huh? It’ll be the death of us all. Regards, Richard"
And then:Jonathan Winters and Dean Martin
And then:Jonathan Winters and Dean Martin
Jonathan Winters and Dean Martin are flying First Class in this funny
skit with Dean as the Straight Man and Jonathan as the loud and
talkative passenger he has to sit next to. I love the part about never making
fun of a Veteran. The line “I’m one of those heroes that likes to talk about it”.
Semper Fi Jonathan and thanks for all the laughs! If you enjoyed this funny video
you might also like to watch Jonathan Winters Stick.
click here for interesting video
And then:
https://www.investors.com/
+++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++
The ADL , which was once a courageous defender, has new management at the top and now they have turned into just another organization that tramples on their former proud record. They read as if they could be the media journal for the Southern Poverty Center.(See 1 below.)
+++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++
A retired, observant Latino New York Policeman speaks truth . (See 2 below.)
++++++++++++++++++++++++++
What next direction will Iran take? (See 3 below.)
And:
Karen House is a brilliant writer and has a long history of observing The Saudi Kingdom. Change is afoot and, I have been writing for quite some time, this can have a positive impact on Israel's relationships in the region and thus, our own.
Can MBS pull it off. All should hope so. (See 3a below.)
======================
Congress is addressing an issue that is not broadly known but could be very positive for investors, for those deprived of saving and thus. for the markets. (See 4 below.)
+++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++
For it's interest. ( See 5 below.)
Word from advisor Kudlow, British trade official soon to come to DC with trade renegotiation proposals including support from Merkel. In time, quite likely, Trump will be able to point to a victory of sort. Patience and watching results far more effective than knee jerk reaction to what Trump says and the negative immediate reaction from the Trump haters etc.
Just a casual observation.
+++++++++++++++++++++++++++++
Trump should meet with Sam Nunn and learn about nuclear issues from an expert. (See 6 below.)
One of the democratic problems for American leadership is that we change presidents every 8 years and even after four, whereas our adversaries can endure for life etc. In the case of Trump being unique when compared with former presidents, save possibly for Truman, and his policies are influenced greatly by a "uge" ego much as with Obama, decision making may create problems for successor presidents who feel they are not as self-endowed when it comes to negotiation tactics etc.
Every president leaves his marks, good and bad, and the impact demands adjustments that our adversaries must comprehend but if they are in a more constant and secure position they have some advantage over us. Think Khrushchev/ Kennedy etc.
Three ways to look at same issue. (See 6a, 6b and 6c Below.)
++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++
I caught an interview with Dana Perino and Arthur Brooks ( Arthur Brooks Podcast.com) and they were discussing the poverty level remains at 13% and probably is actually higher. Brooks made the point that people want work, they want to be earners but the problem is skill match and education - what's new?
Hard nosed conservatives, like yours truly, believe in "Earned success."
Bleeding liberals believe in welfare .
Which camp are you in and which camp has struggled with the problem and which has made it worse? Does centralized distant government share in the blame, is the cause, is where you look for solutions?
My response is God Forbid!!!
++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++
Dick
+++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++
1)The ADL Chooses Anti-Trump over Anti-Semitism
How a Democratic operative led the venerable hate-monitoring group off a partisan cliff.
The moment President Trump concluded his announcement of the nomination of Judge Brett Kavanaugh to the U.S. Supreme Court, the Anti-Defamation League fired off a tweet. In it, ADL CEO Jonathan Greenblatt tore into Kavanaugh as lacking the “independence and fair treatment for all that is necessary to merit a seat on the nation’s highest court.”
The tweet teased a press release that obliquely demanded that the Senate reject the nomination. The timing made it clear that there would be no questions or deliberative process before the venerable group, which for more than century has played the role of both defender of the Jewish community against anti-Semitism and monitor of hate crimes, made up its mind about Kavanaugh. Considering that the ADL was quicker to publicly oppose the nomination than were some members of the Democratic caucus who were certain “no” votes on the appointment, the group’s haste showed that it had planned to oppose anyone nominated by Trump.
It is no surprise that many liberal groups — including some that are all-in on what some on the left are treating as an apocalyptic fight for the future of the High Court — are reflexively opposed to anyone Trump may nominate. But the ADL’s presence in the ranks of those who are supplying the organizational muscle for the resistance to Trump might come as a surprise to those who haven’t been paying much attention to the group in recent years. Though it spent its first century of existence being careful to avoid getting labeled as a partisan outfit, in the three years since the ADL’s longtime national director Abe Foxman retired, Greenblatt has steadily pushed the group farther to the left and, in so doing, more or less destroyed its reputation as being above politics. After the ADL has repeatedly involved itself in partisan controversies, it is impossible to pretend that Greenblatt’s vision of the group isn’t fundamentally that of a Democratic-party auxiliary that is increasingly overshadowing and marginalizing its still-vital role as the nation’s guardian against anti-Semitism.
The ADL was founded in 1913 as a reaction to the unjust murder conviction and subsequent lynching of Leo Frank, a Jewish factory manager in Atlanta. Over the subsequent decades, it grew in importance and strength, taking on the task of being the preeminent group devoted to combating anti-Semitism as well as other kinds of hate. Under Foxman, who was no stranger to controversy, the ADL was sometimes criticized for a willingness to act as the sole arbiter over whether problematic speech was hate to be condemned or a gaffe to be excused. Nevertheless, Foxman’s keen political instincts and instinctive understanding of when the ADL should weigh in on an issue not only preserved its considerable influence but also managed to keep it out of partisan squabbles. Nor did Foxman — a child survivor of the Holocaust — downplay the ADL’s traditional role as a leading supporter of the state of Israel.
Not only is Greenblatt uninterested in avoiding accusations of partisanship, he has actively courted them, especially since Trump became president.
Given Greenblatt’s background, this should have come as a surprise to no one.
Greenblatt’s main résumé items before leading the ADL consist of being a staffer in both the Clinton and Obama administrations as a “green” social-innovation entrepreneur. After 28 years with Foxman at the helm, the group was looking for something different, but choosing someone with no experience running a Jewish organization brought with it the risk that a new leader would be insufficiently aware of the dangers of the ADL’s being steered away from the job it did well. While the group’s board wanted someone who could appeal to younger volunteers and donors as well as new methods of reaching them via social media, what they got with Greenblatt was more than a change of pace. His priority was clearly to keep the ADL in sync with liberal political opinion, with little regard for backing Israel and even less for creating a big tent in which Republicans would be as welcome as Democrats.
Even before Trump won in 2016, Greenblatt served notice that he opposed the Netanyahu government in Israel when he attacked the prime minister for his criticisms of the Palestinian Authority after its call for the eviction of all Jews from the West Bank in the event of a two-state solution being implemented. That the ADL leader’s sympathies were openly with his former boss President Obama, who was then embroiled in a bitter argument with Netanyahu over Iran and the peace process, signaled that the ADL viewed itself more as part of a liberal coalition than as one of the leaders of the pro-Israel community.
But once Trump took office, Greenblatt, who had been rumored to be in line for a senior post in a putative Hillary Clinton administration, made no secret of his animus for the new president. In early 2017, Greenblatt didn’t hesitate to directly blame President Trump for what was being represented as a surge of anti-Semitic incidents. The surge was largely the result of a spate of bomb threats at Jewish community centers around the country. But it turned out that — contrary to the ADL’s charge that it was the work of alt-right extremists inspired or unleashed by Trump — a disturbed Israeli teenager had made the threats. The ADL never apologized for its misleading accusations.
Nor was Greenblatt shy about damning Trump press secretary Sean Spicer for using an inappropriate and inaccurate Holocaust analogy when he said that Hitler hadn’t used poison gas. While Spicer quickly apologized, the ADL continued to pile on, prompting New York Post op-ed editor Seth Mandel to chide the group for using the Holocaust for partisan reasons. For that offense, the group’s staffers and volunteers bombarded Mandel with a coordinated campaign of social-media abuse. This raised questions as to whether, under Greenblatt, the ADL was more interested in silencing its Jewish critics than in actually fighting hate or supporting Israel.
In April of this year, Greenblatt doubled down again on his anti-Trump stand by not merely opposing the nomination of Mike Pompeo to be secretary of state but joining radical-Islamist groups such as CAIR in labeling him an anti-Muslim bigot. The charge was false, and it even condemned Pompeo — an ardent friend of Israel as well as an opponent of anti-Semitism — for making statements urging Muslims to condemn terror that were identical to stands taken by the ADL in its pre-Greenblatt era
But with Kavanaugh, Greenblatt has ventured even farther into party politics.
While the ADL has a role to play in the national discussion about constitutional issues, Judge Kavanaugh is no extremist or radical and is a pillar of the old GOP establishment. In this hyperpartisan moment in our history, a group like ADL ought to be even more careful than it might have been in the past to avoid stands that color it as a support group for either political party. Succumbing to the temptation to join the fray against Kavanaugh without a moment’s hesitation wasn’t just a mistake. It was the act of a man who doesn’t even feel the need to maintain the pretense that the group he leads has a higher purpose than diving into the daily political scrum.
If the Kavanaugh nomination were an example of Trumpian excess or extremism, the ADL might have a leg to stand on. But Kavanaugh, a respected mainstream conservative, is exactly the sort of person that any Republican would nominate. Joining the Democrats in a futile attempt to portray him as an extremist isn’t merely dishonest (it’s bad enough for some secular groups to be playing that game); for an organization such as the ADL, which purports to represent the Jewish community, to do so is to send a signal that it thinks all Republicans and conservatives, even the most sober and responsible, are beyond the pale. The question for the ADL is: How can it possibly do its job on anti-Semitism if that’s where Greenblatt has positioned it?
Anger against Trump is influencing ADL donors as much as it is many others in the Jewish world, where liberals predominate. Even normally level-headed people have been driven off the deep end by Trump’s consistently inappropriate behavior and statements, leading many to make strained and offensive analogies between Trump’s presidency and the Nazis. But rather than acting, as he should, as a brake on the worst instincts of the anti-Trump “resistance,” Greenblatt is leading the charge over the cliff into a partisan abyss.
Perhaps that would be acceptable for other groups whose brief is admittedly partisan in nature. But the ADL’s role as the nation’s anti-Semitism watchdog shouldn’t be squandered in this fashion as it replaces longtime donors devoted to its mission with new left-wing supporters who want to fight Trump and the Republicans, not genuine anti-Semites. The ADL has lost its way. It’s time for the group to reverse course before it finds that Greenblatt has destroyed what’s left of its reputation.
++++++++++++++++++++++++++++
2)
When Smart Jews are Not Smart
Rabbi Moshe Greene, who was a teacher in "Yeshiva Sh'or Yoshuv" (when it was located in Far Rockaway, Queens, NY -- now in Lawrence, Long Island, NY), reported the following startling encounter:
I was driving in New York City, and everyone knows NYC is no easy place to drive in. One day the inevitable happened. While I was driving from my home in Queens, I hit something hard and my tire went flat. I pulled over and called AAA, and sat back to wait for help to come.
About a half hour later, a Latino man in his sixties pulled up. He introduced himself as Donny and, to my shock, started speaking in Yiddish.
"Are you Jewish?" I asked him, completely caught off guard. He shook his head with a smile and said, "No."
I laughed and then asked him the obvious question, "Well, if you are not Jewish, where did you learn to speak Yiddish?"
While crouching down to examine the damaged tire he said, "I picked it up many years ago when I was hanging out with one of your buddies. Ever heard of Rabbi Yoel Teitlebaum?"
I was shocked yet again. "You mean the great leader of Satmar? In Williamsburg (a neighborhood in Brooklyn)?" I asked in disbelief.
"The one and only," he chuckled.
He then went on to explain how he was a retired N.Y.P.D. (New York City Police Department] cop who on numerous occasions in the 1960's and 70's was assigned to protect the Satmar Rebbe, Rabbi Yoel Teitlebaum. Not only would he defend him from outsiders, but also from the throngs of chasidim who wanted to get near him. Donny was assigned to be his bodyguard at home, inshul (synagogue) and at public gatherings. He would dress up as a Satmar chasid with a beard, peyos (sidelocks), and a bekesheh(Chasidic robe), and scan the crowds while trying to look as inconspicuous as possible.
I just had to ask, "How were you able to tell a Satmar chassid from an impersonator?"
"Oh it was easy" he joked. "You guys are always hunched over your books. If I saw a man standing a little too straight, I kept my eye on him. He was either an impersonator or someone who wasn't taking his studies seriously!"
He then asked me if I knew the term "Yiddisheh Kop."
"Of course," I replied, wondering where this was heading. "It refers to Jews being smart and clever people."
[Editor's interruption to jolly up these Nine Days of Sadness:
Honestly, when I first read "Yiddisheh Kop," I thought he was playfully referring to himself as a Yiddish-speaking cop. Then I got it. Perhaps if the source had spelled it 'Kopp ' I would have caught right away it was the Yiddish word for head. I left the Kop spelling unchanged to test you, dear Reader, but from here on I'll use the less ambiguous orthography.]
Honestly, when I first read "Yiddisheh Kop," I thought he was playfully referring to himself as a Yiddish-speaking cop. Then I got it. Perhaps if the source had spelled it 'Kopp ' I would have caught right away it was the Yiddish word for head. I left the Kop spelling unchanged to test you, dear Reader, but from here on I'll use the less ambiguous orthography.]
Suddenly, Donny turned serious and said, "I heard you Jews used to live in Israel where you had a special temple in Jerusalem, a glorious place where you all got together for your holidays. Right?"
I nodded.
"I also heard about two thousand years ago after the Temple was destroyed you were exiled because you couldn't get along with each other. Correct?"
I nodded again. But he continued. "I also heard if you guys could just get along, G-d will move you back to Israel and He'll rebuild your Temple."
"Correct."
Donny than leaned towards me and looked me straight in the eye.
"So if you guys are so smart with your Yiddisheh Kopps, how come in two thousand years you haven't figured out how to get along?"
"So if you guys are so smart with your Yiddisheh Kopps, how come in two thousand years you haven't figured out how to get along?"
I just looked at him...I had no answer.
Sometimes it takes a Latino to prove a simple point,
But his message still rings true.
If we could just stop being so judgmental and critical with each other, and once a day greet someone with a smile, we would then be able to sit on the ground on Tisha b'Av with justified hope, having proven Donny wrong.
~~~~~~~~~~~~Source: Adapted and annotated by Yerachmiel Tilles from Torah Tavlin on Tisha Bav [2005], by Rabbi Dovid Hoffman.
Biographical note:
Rabbi Yoel Teitelbaum [of blessed memory: 5648 - 26 Av 5739 (1888 - August 1979 C.E.)], was part of an miraculous escape from Bergen-Belsen in 1944, after which he went to the Holy Land. In 1947 he moved to the USA, where he established himself as the Satmar Rebbe, in the Williamsburg section of Brooklyn, doing extensive work in establishing Torah education networks. Famed as the leader of Hungarian Jewry and the largest Chassidic group in the world, and as the spiritual leader of the opposition to a secular-based Jewish government in Israel, he was also one of the greatest Torah scholars of his generation.
Connection: Seasonal - This entire week is part of the Nine Days leading into Tisha b'Av.
Rabbi Yoel Teitelbaum [of blessed memory: 5648 - 26 Av 5739 (1888 - August 1979 C.E.)], was part of an miraculous escape from Bergen-Belsen in 1944, after which he went to the Holy Land. In 1947 he moved to the USA, where he established himself as the Satmar Rebbe, in the Williamsburg section of Brooklyn, doing extensive work in establishing Torah education networks. Famed as the leader of Hungarian Jewry and the largest Chassidic group in the world, and as the spiritual leader of the opposition to a secular-based Jewish government in Israel, he was also one of the greatest Torah scholars of his generation.
Connection: Seasonal - This entire week is part of the Nine Days leading into Tisha b'Av.
+++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++
3)
What’s Next for the Iran Nuclear Deal, and What That Means for Israel
While the U.S. has withdrawn from the Joint Comprehensive Plan of Action (JCPOA)—as the nuclear agreement with Tehran is formally known—the Islamic Republic’s response still remains unclear. Michael Herzog believes it unlikely that the ayatollahs will be content either to do nothing or to renegotiate the terms of the deal. He writes:
The more likely scenario is that Iran will resume its nuclear activities with regard to [uranium] enrichment, albeit slowly and gradually, at each phase [observing] the international and domestic response [before] deciding how to proceed. There is a range of activities they can undertake, starting with the . . . less risky part of the spectrum, and then possibly escalating. The more extreme measures of withdrawing from the Non-Proliferation Treaty, stopping all cooperation with the International Atomic Energy Agency (IAEA), kicking out inspectors, and going underground with its nuclear program are less likely in the foreseeable future because they enhance the risk of a U.S. or Israeli military response and they will bring about loss of European support.
More likely is that Iran decides to enrich uranium up to 20 percent using new types of centrifuges and continues to work with the IAEA on its own terms—allowing limited inspections of declared sites. As major sanctions are kicking in regardless, the Iranians don’t have much to lose economically, but their continued cooperation with the IAEA may make it harder [for Israel or the U.S.] to decide on military action against them.
Once Iran resumes its nuclear program outside the scope of the JCPOA, both the U.S. and Israel will have to redefine their red lines concerning the Iranian nuclear program, namely where to draw a line, the crossing of which would trigger a military response against Iran. . . .
[O]ne also has to follow carefully the unfolding diplomatic process between the U.S. and North Korea. Everyone, including the Iranians, is watching very closely, and the situation in the Middle East will be [affected] by what develops in the Korean peninsula. If there is a real agreement on the denuclearization of North Korea, including credible inspections inside the country, then this will strengthen the U.S.’s hand vis-à-vis Iran. If, on the other hand, a weak deal with North Korea emerges that leaves its [nuclear] infrastructure and capabilities in place, this may strengthen the Iranians vis-à-vis the international community.
The more likely scenario is that Iran will resume its nuclear activities with regard to [uranium] enrichment, albeit slowly and gradually, at each phase [observing] the international and domestic response [before] deciding how to proceed. There is a range of activities they can undertake, starting with the . . . less risky part of the spectrum, and then possibly escalating. The more extreme measures of withdrawing from the Non-Proliferation Treaty, stopping all cooperation with the International Atomic Energy Agency (IAEA), kicking out inspectors, and going underground with its nuclear program are less likely in the foreseeable future because they enhance the risk of a U.S. or Israeli military response and they will bring about loss of European support.
More likely is that Iran decides to enrich uranium up to 20 percent using new types of centrifuges and continues to work with the IAEA on its own terms—allowing limited inspections of declared sites. As major sanctions are kicking in regardless, the Iranians don’t have much to lose economically, but their continued cooperation with the IAEA may make it harder [for Israel or the U.S.] to decide on military action against them.
Once Iran resumes its nuclear program outside the scope of the JCPOA, both the U.S. and Israel will have to redefine their red lines concerning the Iranian nuclear program, namely where to draw a line, the crossing of which would trigger a military response against Iran. . . .
[O]ne also has to follow carefully the unfolding diplomatic process between the U.S. and North Korea. Everyone, including the Iranians, is watching very closely, and the situation in the Middle East will be [affected] by what develops in the Korean peninsula. If there is a real agreement on the denuclearization of North Korea, including credible inspections inside the country, then this will strengthen the U.S.’s hand vis-à-vis Iran. If, on the other hand, a weak deal with North Korea emerges that leaves its [nuclear] infrastructure and capabilities in place, this may strengthen the Iranians vis-à-vis the international community.
3a)
The Model for a Saudi Reformer
Mohammed bin Salman, the young crown prince, has much in common with his legendary grandfather.
By Karen Elliott House, Riyadh, Saudi Arabia
.
As Mohammed bin Salman begins his second year as crown prince and de facto ruler of Saudi Arabia, it becomes clearer that his role model is his paternal grandfather, Abdul Aziz al Saud. The uncanny similarity between these two young rulers, a century apart, offers clear clues to the country’s direction today.
Born in 1875, Abdul Aziz was under 30 when he conquered Riyadh and began to subdue and unite the fractious Saudi tribes. Three decades later, in 1932, the Kingdom of Saudi Arabia was declared. Abdul Aziz then leveraged his primitive kingdom’s newfound oil wealth to make it a pivotal power before his death in 1953.
Born in 1875, Abdul Aziz was under 30 when he conquered Riyadh and began to subdue and unite the fractious Saudi tribes. Three decades later, in 1932, the Kingdom of Saudi Arabia was declared. Abdul Aziz then leveraged his primitive kingdom’s newfound oil wealth to make it a pivotal power before his death in 1953.
His grandson, 32, seeks a similar transformation. Addicted to oil wealth, Saudi Arabia has become a somnolent and spoiled society, with a squabbling royal family of some 7,000 princes. Mohammed bin Salman, known as MBS, hopes to transform his country into a modern, self-reliant nation—while retaining his grandfather’s iron grip on power. The question on every Saudi’s lips is: Can he succeed?
A hard look at the parallels between MBS and his grandfather suggests he can. The crown prince shows every sign of equaling Abdul Aziz’s ability to outmaneuver disgruntled royals, recalcitrant religious fanatics and meddlesome foreign powers—not to mention today’s skeptical populace, traumatized by new taxes, job scarcity, very slow economic growth, and slashed government subsidies for gas, electricity and water.
One trait the two leaders share is a visionary streak. Abdul Aziz knew that the shifting loyalties of nomadic Bedouins made it hard to create a stable nation. His novel idea was to persuade the nomads to live in agricultural villages, where he pledged to send them religious teachers—who then preached loyalty to Allah ahead of tribal connections. This began to create a dependence on Abdul Aziz and his religious partners, loosening tribal ties.
The grandson’s Vision 2030, unveiled at a televised press conference in 2016, is no less revolutionary. Saudis, long dependent on an oil-funded welfare state for jobs, education, cheap energy and more, now are being asked to take jobs in the private economy, where they actually must work and can be fired for nonperformance. So far slow economic growth has crippled job creation.
Another common trait is ruthlessness. In 1911, Abdul Aziz’s opponents, including some of his own cousins, massed an army to challenge his hold on Riyadh. In response he forced the surrender of the rebellious village of Laila. Displaying his flair for the dramatic, he granted the village’s leaders a 24-hour stay of execution while his men built a platform outside the town gate. At dawn he took his seat and presided over the beheading of 18 of the 19 condemned men. He abruptly pardoned the final man, ordering him to tell all he met of the vengeance of Abdul Aziz. It was classic Abdul Aziz: offering opponents a choice between destruction or submission.
MBS showed his own taste for drama last year by rounding up at least 300 princes, ministers and businessmen on charges of corruption. Men accustomed to carrying several cellphones and living in guarded privacy were jailed in Riyadh’s Ritz-Carlton, forced to keep open their room doors, and denied contact with anyone other than interrogators. The government claims that the shakedown netted $100 billion of ill-gotten money from the prisoners. Even after being released their humiliation continues, since many are required to wear tracking devices and can’t leave the country.
Selected Saudis continue to be arrested quietly and held without charges; others have their bank accounts frozen by the government. Last week the kingdom’s best-known businessman, Prince Al Waleed bin Talal, was photographed embracing MBS, who is his cousin and his recent Ritz jailer. It was a visible sign of the crown prince’s dominance. His message in all this echoes that of his grandfather: destruction or submission.
MBS also matches his grandfather’s reputation for charisma. Abdul Aziz was said by one of his biographers to have a smile “irresistibly all absorbing, which swept listeners up with him, blinding their judgment.” Now the crown prince’s informality and charm have made him popular among young Saudis and foreigners alike.
Both leaders faced down their kingdom’s religious fanatics. In 1929, Abdul Aziz crushed the fanatical Ikhwan, a Bedouin army that had helped him win numerous battles, because it refused to halt raids into neighboring British protectorates that he didn’t want to antagonize. MBS has stood up to the religious elite to impose breathtaking social changes, including letting women drive and allowing concerts and cinemas. At a recent showing of “Incredibles 2” in Riyadh, I saw Saudi men, women and children happily mixing and munching large boxes of popcorn, trays of nachos and supersize colas—a scene that would have been incredible only a few months ago.
MBS is not his grandfather in every way. Abdul Aziz had a reputation for always being cool and calculating, plotting his moves patiently. By contrast, the crown prince has developed a reputation, at least among his critics, for being rash and impulsive—such as in his confrontations with Qatar and Yemen. Admirers argue, however, that such moves are cleverly planned for domestic as well as international effect. In addition, Abdul Aziz had a hardscrabble upbringing and a reputation for simple living, whereas MBS has purchased a $500 million yacht, a French château and a $450 million painting by da Vinci.
In a country with no history or pretense of democracy, the royal family intrigue and tribal kinship have been a constant. Saudi rulers mostly have wrangled the factions with a blend of wisdom, manipulation, brutality and blandishments. The crown prince, whose maternal grandfather murdered Abdul Aziz’s brother during one rivalry, is well placed to understand how to use that same formula to stay on top.
Saudi society clearly has changed over the past half-century. Still, it retains indelible traces of its past. MBS will have to manage angry uncles and cousins, as well as an internet-informed young populace. Yet if history is a guide, he seems likely to navigate successfully and, like his grandfather, retain firm control of one of the world’s only remaining absolute monarchies.
Ms. House, a former publisher of The Wall Street Journal, is author of “On Saudi Arabia: Its People, Past, Religion, Fault Lines—and Future” (Knopf, 2012).
4) Retirement Bills in Congress Could Alter 401(k) Plans
House GOP may grab parts of bipartisan Senate bill, add access to emergency savings
Lawmakers are working on the biggest changes to U.S. retirement savings in more than a decade, exploring several proposals that could make it easier for small companies to offer 401(k) plans and for workers to guarantee themselves an annual income after they retire.
The efforts start with a bipartisan Senate bill and House Republicans’ plan to make retirement and savings a crucial part of their push for tax legislation this summer and fall. It isn’t clear which, if any, measures are likely to survive the legislative process, but the broad interest in encouraging savings gives lawmakers a chance at passing something this year.
Among the proposals Congress may consider are a new type of savings account that is more open-ended than current vehicles, ways to encourage savings that can be tapped in an emergency and the repeal of a provision that prevents people over age 70 ½ from contributing to traditional Individual Retirement Accounts.
Within 401(k)s, proposals include requiring plans to disclose to employees the monthly annuity income their savings would support. Other measures would encourage small employers to use automatic enrollment and make it easier for employers to automatically raise employees’ savings rates beyond 10% of income—a cap that now applies to some plans.
The proposals could face obstacles in a divided Congress in an election year. Still, if passed, the measures would amount to the most significant alterations to 401(k) plans since 2006, when Congress made it easier for employers to enroll workers automatically and invest their money in funds that shift focus from stocks to bonds as people age.
“It is something that could actually move the needle on retirement security,” said Michael Kreps, a principal at Groom Law Group, who represents financial services companies and 401(k) plan sponsors.
The discussions are starting with a bill known as the Retirement Enhancement and Savings Act, or RESA, that hasn’t advanced amid a slim congressional election-year calendar and partisan tensions over tax policy. However, the bill has attracted support from financial-services companies and AARP, the advocacy group for older Americans, which says “RESA is an important step to improving retirement policy.”
In the Senate, RESA is sponsored by the Finance Committee’s chairman, Orrin Hatch (R., Utah), and its top Democrat, Ron Wyden of Oregon. RESA won unanimous approval from the committee in 2016, but it hasn’t advanced beyond that stage.
RELATED
Among the provisions in RESA is one that would allow small employers to band together to offer 401(k)-type plans. By joining a so-called multiple-employer plan, or MEP, small companies can spread plan administrative costs over more participants, lowering fees.
The arrangement is now available, but only to employers with an affiliation or connection, such as members of the same industry trade association. RESA would eliminate that restriction.
The bill would also encourage 401(k)-style plans to offer annuities, which help participants transform their balances into lifetime income streams. Although commonly offered by traditional pension plans, annuities aren’t often used in 401(k) plans, in part due to concerns about fees but also because employers worry about liability if they choose an insurance company that later fails to pay claims.
To encourage more plan sponsors to take the plunge, the bill gives those that follow certain procedures some protection from future lawsuits when selecting an annuity provider. It also expands a tax credit available to small companies to offset the costs of starting a new retirement plan. The annual credit amount would increase from $500 to as much as $5,000 for three years.
On Tuesday, a bipartisan group of senators introduced separate legislation that would shift some of the fiduciary responsibility from small employers that band together in multiple-employer plans to the financial services firms that administer the MEPs.
The legislation would remove disincentives to small businesses to offer 401(k) plans that automatically enroll workers and allow employers to automatically enroll workers into emergency savings accounts. (Employees would be free to opt out.)
It would also give workers the option to choose to save a portion of their tax refund before it is issued.
Retirement and savings incentives will make up one of three bills in the “Tax Reform 2.0” package House Republicans are assembling, said Rep. Kevin Brady (R., Texas), chairman of the Ways and Means Committee. Mr. Brady and other committee members discussed the savings initiative Tuesday with President Donald Trump, according to Rep. Jim Renacci (R-Ohio), who attended the meeting.
The centerpiece of the House GOP tax package is an extension of last year’s tax cuts beyond their 2025 expiration date; that is unlikely to draw enough Democratic votes to become law. But Mr. Brady said he hoped the new retirement bill will attract bipartisan support .
Rep. Richard Neal (D., Mass.), the top Democrat on Ways and Means, said he backs tax provisions that would make it easier for people to set money aside—though he emphasized that Republicans should have placed on higher priority on that than tax-rate cuts last year. Mr. Brady said any new ability for people to tap into tax-preferred savings would be “very limited.”
“You want that money to stay in there and grow,” he said. ”But we also know that one of the hesitations is that they worry that they put it in and it is locked away, whether they need braces or there’s an emergency.”
House Republicans, as they did on the larger tax law last year, haven’t included Democrats in their talks, said Rep. Suzan DelBene (D., Wash.)
“While I would like to see Democrats and Republicans work together to address struggling pension programs and ensure seniors can live in dignity, House Republicans again show no interest in bipartisan collaboration,” she said in a statement.
++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++
5) " … One thing is sure, amid the timely coordination between Team Mueller and the former officials the desperation is more visible. And when an increased desperation is visible, that generally means there’s something closer to the surface that needs to be hidden.
With that in mind a picture is emerging that might begin to reconcile some of the events noted in the past several weeks.
Crowdstrike was an “FBI contractor” in 2015 and 2016. Crowdstrike was also hired by the DNC, DCCC and Clinton campaign. The FBI never had access to the servers and equipment they claim was probed/hacked/infiltrated by Russians. Instead, the FBI relied upon third-hand forensic reports from Crowdstrike to formulate their sketchy conclusions.
If Crowdstrike was one of the ’15/’16 “FBI contractors” abusing the NSA/FBI database for 702, 704, 705(b) (Pages 82, 84) intelligence searches (which were clearly being done for political opposition research), and passing that unlawfully extracted FISA intelligence to the DNC, DCCC and/or Clinton Campaigns, then suddenly a series of events surrounding the mysteriously missing servers begins to make more sense.
Additionally, if Crowdstrike was doing political opposition research via their contractor access to the NSA/FBI database, it would also explain the Awan issue(s) and the motive for the FBI/DOJ to throw a bag over the Awan case.
Remember, access to the DNC and DCCC electronic records was part of the Awan story. If Crowdstrike was a contractor doing the database searches, and sharing the results with the DNC/DCCC, the Awan brothers would also have access to that information. This would explain the DOJ/FBI (officials therein) motive to quickly get rid of the Awan investigation, and it would explain why the FBI was never allowed access to the DNC/DCCC servers. Indeed the sketchy “Russia hacking story” becomes a convenient cover for a multitude of issues.
Again we go back to the single-most-important FISA document that was declassified by ODNI Dan Coats on April 26th, 2017:
Just consider those two segments for a moment. From the spacing of the redactions we can tell the number of queries is in the four digits, ie. “thousands”. We can also see that 85% of those search queries were “non compliant” from November 1, 2015, through May 1, 2016. [Coincidentally the exact dates later described by the DNC for their hacking issues]
That means 850 out of each 1,000 searches was for unauthorized purposes. Later, on Page #82, the NSA reports they have no way to know where the information went based on these non-compliant queries.
At this point there’s every reason to believe that Fusion-GPS and/or Crowdstrike are government contractor names behind these redactions; both organizations using their access to the NSA/FBI database to conduct political opposition research using non-compliant search queries. Both Fusion-GPS and Crowdstrike were also formally working with the DNC and Clinton campaign. …"
+++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++
6) Containing Putin—and Trump
6) Containing Putin—and Trump
Congress needs to block any new arms deal until Russia stops cheating.
By The Editorial Board
“I have full faith in our intelligence agencies,” Mr. Trump said Tuesday at the White House. He added that he unintentionally erred Monday when he said, “I don’t see any reason why it would be Russia” that had done the cyber-hacking. He said he meant to say, “I don’t see any reason why it wouldn’t be Russia.”
Less encouraging is Mr. Trump’s continued enthusiasm for working with Mr. Putin on issues like Syria and arms control. On nuclear weapons in particular, Mr. Trump is a neophyte compared with the Russian who wants to rewrite the historical record to lure the President into further reducing the U.S. arsenal.
We wonder who thought of that one, but never mind. At least Mr. Trump has at last publicly sided with his own advisers over the former KGB agent in the Kremlin. He also said “we are doing everything in our power to prevent Russian interference” in the 2018 election, which his intelligence advisers have also warned him about.
Nuclear weapons are “the greatest threat of our world today,” Mr. Trump told reporters Tuesday. Russia is “a great nuclear power, we’re a great nuclear power. We have to do something about nuclear, and so that was a matter that we discussed actually in great detail, and President Putin agrees with me.”
Uh oh. In an interview with Fox News host Chris Wallace Monday, Mr. Putin lamented America’s “unilateral withdrawal” from the 1972 Anti-Ballistic Missile Treaty (ABM) during the George W. Bush Administration. “We didn’t want the United States to withdraw from the ABM treaty, but they did despite our request not to do it,” Mr. Putin said.
What Mr. Putin didn’t explain is that the ABM Treaty, which limited deployments of missile defenses, was a bilateral pact that the U.S. adhered to and the Soviets repeatedly violated, notably by building a large, phased-array radar at Krasnoyarsk. When the Soviet Union collapsed in 1991, the ABM Treaty was effectively voided, yet Republican and Democratic Presidents kept the treaty in place.
George W. Bush finally withdrew from ABM in 2002, explaining that the Cold War had ended, Russia was no longer an enemy, and the treaty hindered the U.S. “ability to develop ways to protect our people from future terrorist or rogue state missile attacks.” The Bush Administration understood that the treaty left the U.S. defenseless against a missile from the likes of Iran and North Korea.
Mr. Bush’s withdrawal was legal under the treaty’s termination clause, and at the time Mr. Putin said the move was “mistaken” but “presented no threat to Russia’s security.” Yet on Monday Mr. Putin said Russia’s development of new offensive weaponry like the Sarmat intercontinental ballistic missile was “born as a response to the unilateral withdrawal of the United States from the ABM Treaty.”
In his news conference with Mr. Trump, Mr. Putin also excused Russian violations of the 1987 Intermediate-range Nuclear Forces Treaty, which bars ground-launched ballistic and cruise missiles with ranges of 500 to 5,500 kilometers. Mr. Putin blamed “implementation issues.” He didn’t say that the Pentagon believes a new medium-range nuclear cruise missile that Russia has deployed in Europe violates the INF treaty. And Mr. Trump didn’t call him on it.
Mr. Putin wants to draw Mr. Trump into an arms-control negotiation that would revive the ABM limits while expanding Barack Obama’s New Start reductions in U.S. missiles. Mr. Trump is so confident of his personal deal-making skills, and so untutored in nuclear arms, that we hope the negotiations never begin.
This is where Congress needs a containment strategy—for Mr. Putin and for Mr. Trump’s desire to cut deals with him. Members of both parties can make clear that no new arms deal is possible until Mr. Putin stops cheating on current treaties; that no limit on missile defenses is tolerable; and that any new deal must be submitted to the Senate as a treaty requiring a two-thirds vote for ratification.
6a)Trump Delivers on Russia
