+++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++
Hatred has dangerous implications that can ruin foreign relations. Schiff, Waters and their kind do not care about the effect on our nation and most particularly the Oval Office but , in time, they will fall on their swords for their heinous activities. Their kind always does.(See 1 below.)
+++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++
Iran has established a second front abutting The Golan. It should be only a matter of time before Israel strikes at Iran. They have been attacking Iranian surrogates from the air but that will not be enough. (See 2 below.)
++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++
The remainder of this memo is a dedicated attempt,on my part, to explain convictions, link dots and ask the reader to accept , perhaps unsubstantiated, leaps of faith that both Victor Davis Hanson (See 3 below.) and Kim Strassel are far better at than I.
I have always maintained Obama was Wilson's equivalent of "The Music Man." All hype." He defined his own actions as wanting to "transform America" and he did. Some ways were blatantly evident, others more subtle. In my opinion, he was the most radical president in recent history and his success at transformation was outstanding but highly destructive.
His efforts took many forms, twists and turns and the quilt work of transformation included his passivity regarding Russia, China, N. Korea Turkey/Erdogan and his more aggressive efforts regarding The Muslim Brotherhood, Iran, and his acts to destabilize American politics, weaponize our institutions through intimidation and character assassination and weaken our society in a variety of ways, ie through open borders, sanctuary cities, providing weaponry to drug lords, radical immigration from Somalia , the Middle East, Benghazi and a variety of other activities too numerous to recite.
I also believe, and have written about,his subtle acts of military assistance to Israel in order to maintain liberal Jewish political and financial support while concurrently enhancing the effectiveness of Israel's adversaries, like Iran. He tried to assist The Muslim Brotherhood in Egypt but failed.
I have no racial animus but admit my empathy for the black cause has diminished over the years because of reverse discrimination connected with affirmative action policies, marches on Wall Street and The Black Lives Matter movement and the overboard/concerted and imbecilic actions of black politicians like Booker, Walters, Harris, Brazile, Holden and most of all Obama who,I believe, is a contemporary Svengali and Rasputin.
The rest of this memo will be specific but in no order of magnitude:
China: This nation, from a long term standpoint, is the biggest threat to world order. They developed their military and domestic capabilities in a variety of ways in the face of Obama's passivity. China is increasing nation lending and port development worldwide, establishing new coral bases in The South China Sea in order to eventually control world sea commerce routes. Obama also allowed America's naval fleet to decrease to levels below historic numbers. He did nothing to challenge China's trade violations and aggressive theft of American industrial intelligence.
Russia: Here,Obama's behaviour was perhaps the most egregious. We know he told Putin, indirectly, upon his re-election he would become more flexible. He ignored Russia's interference in our election process and we now have learned he ignored Hillary's activities as well as Biden's when it came to, in the case of Hillary, enriching her foundation, allowing the transfer of vast amounts of uranium to Russian entities and using her personal phone to receive and transmit classified information.
As for Biden, Obama apparently winked at allegedly allowing his VP to permit his son to go on the board,and thereby enrich himself, of a Ukrainian energy company and to negotiate the transfer of huge sums from a bank controlled by the Chinese Government to a hedge fund in which Biden's son was involved. (See 3a-3d headlines articles below.)
We are beginning to learn about Hillary and the DNC's efforts to engage former senior officials of the FBI and other intelligence agencies in interfering with Trump's campaign and subsequent election and a connection with Russia possibly through former corrupt officials in Ukraine.
We also know all of this led to The Mueller Investigation which fell flat on it's face but now has led to Trump's potential impeachment based on a trumped up effort to connect him to a Ukraine telephone conversation Trump had with that nation's new president.
Though not connected to Obama, Donna Brazile provided Hillary with questions in advance of a debate in order to gut Sen. Bernie Sanders' prospects in 2015.
Finally, we come to an entire collection of random events, that suggest to me, if you go to the trouble of connecting dots, Obama did everything he could to destabilize and put at risk domestically, socially and militarily only our own nation but also our allies.
Obama's close, but failed, relationship with Turkey's Erdogan possibly led to the latter's arrogant independence and purchase of Russian weaponry putting at risk their strategic NATO status and reliability.
Obama's shipment of cash pallets to Iran allowed that nation's rogue and radical leaders to spread Iran's ability to destabilize and enhance it's importance in the Middle East as it finances the spread of terrorism directly threatening Israel's security. He skirted the law by declaring his deal with Iran was not a treaty and thus did not require Senate concurrence.
Obama tried to cover up the fiasco in Libya involving a dedicated Ambassador's efforts and eventual death seeking to retrieve sensitive military equipment that fell into the hands of terrorists - Benghazi!
We learned, and Kim Strassel reviewed in her book on intimidation, the weaponization of the IRS ' efforts to thwart legal rights of Conservative Groups.
We also know Obama appointed personnel engaged in other illegal acts. Specifically Atty Gen. Holden's cover up of the sale of weapons to Mexican Drug Lords.
Obama's approach towards disregarding illegal immigration and his attacks on law enforcement has resulted in sanctuary cities, disregard of state and local co-operation with ICE and the surge in demands to favor illegal entitlements over American citizens.
The contentious nature American politics has taken is connected to Obama's immigration indifference allowing radicals from Somalia and other African and Muslim nations as well as flooding hoards from our southern borders and their concentration in American cities to enhance successful campaigns leading to House seats and increased political and domestic disruption.
In essence, The Democrat Party, because of the influence four renegade radicals, has moved so far to the Left, Speaker Pelosi has basically lost control and must dance to their tunes of discord, dissension. and anti-Semitic exploitation and now growing prospects of Trump's impeachment.
Schiff family connections to Soros (noted in cartoon above) may elevate the billionaire's funding ability of sensitive campaigns across the nation of state attorney general's and various local district attorney elections and raises connective questions about former Atty.General Holden's own paid involvement in comparable efforts.
We are in perilous times. Progressive radicals are on the march and engaged in efforts to spread discord and chaos. They seek to increase distrust in our nation's purpose and make us decry our glorious history, which, albeit, is far from perfect. But name me a better nation.
They seek to replace capitalism with socialism. They have taken a page from Hitler's belief that by controlling and enthusing an uninformed youth you eventually can bring down an entire society.
In a subtle, but sustained manner, they have filled our college and university departments with radical professors and deans who are now allowed to intimidate naive students in a didactic manner of teaching. Meanwhile, entire Middle Eastern Departments have been financially flooded with radical Wahabi money. (See 3 below.)
I will stop here but I hope, in my kaleidoscope effort, I have given you food for thought. and made you think. Perhaps I have even been effective in casting doubts upon the mass media's successful efforts to protect Obama from scrutiny.
+++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++
Dick
++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++1)
The Whistleblower Executive
Every call with a foreign leader is now subject to congressional review.
The Editorial Board
The impeachment process is barely underway and already some constitutional norms are being trampled without a note of media notice or political concern. To wit, can a whistle blower inside the intelligence bureaucracy override a President’s right to executive privilege merely with an accusation?
That seems to be the default view among Democrats and the press as they luxuriate in news about Donald Trump’s conversations with foreign leaders. First it was the call with Ukraine’s President. Then on Monday the leak was what Mr. Trump told Australian Prime Minister Scott Morrison. Now Democrats want to see the transcripts of other phone calls with other leaders.
“This is a cover up,” declared Nancy Pelosi last week, but if that’s true it is the most incompetent cover up in presidential history. Mr. Trump can’t seem to have any conversation that doesn’t leak, in part or whole, or that can’t be demanded by Congress as if everyone in the executive branch works for the House Speaker. Mr. Trump has released the Ukraine transcript and the whistle blower complaint, and he’s still accused of a cover up.
Last week’s inquisition of acting director of national intelligence Joseph Maguire by House Intelligence Chairman Adam Schiff captures the prevailing disdain for the separation of powers when Mr. Trump is the political target. Mr. Maguire, who has an impeccable reputation, had received the whistle blower complaint as part of his duties. He then acted responsibly by seeking legal advice about whether the document was subject to executive privilege.
Mr. Schiff berated him for even waiting to turn the document over to Congress: “At any time over the last month that you held this complaint, did the White House assert executive privilege?”
Mr. Maguire: “Mr. Chairman, I have endeavored—”
Mr. Schiff: “I think that’s a yes or no question. Did they ever assert executive privilege?”
Amid more browbeating, Mr. Maguire explained that the White House went through a “deliberate process” and “it did appear that [the complaint] has executive privilege. . . . It is the White House that determines that. I cannot determine that as the director of national intelligence.”
Mr. Schiff: “But in this case the White House, the President is the subject of the complaint. He’s the subject of the wrongdoing.” . . .
Mr. Maguire: “I was endeavoring to get the information to you, Mr. Chairman, but I could not forward it as a member of the executive branch without executive privileges being addressed.” . . .
Mr. Schiff: “Well, corruption is not the business, or it shouldn’t be, of the White House or anyone in it.”
Mr. Maguire: “No, but what the White House decides to do with their privileged communications and information, I believe is the business of the White House.”
Mr. Schiff: “Do you believe that’s true even if that communication involves crime or fraud?”
According to the Justice Department’s analysis of the whistle blower's complaint, there was no “crime or fraud.” But Mr. Schiff treats the whistle blower's complaint as enough to override any claim of a President’s right to have confidential communications with foreign leaders.
The implication is that any time anyone in the bureaucracy issues a complaint against a President, Congress has the power to demand it be delivered and made public. That is already happening with the stories about Mr. Morrison. This means that no foreign leader can have the expectation that anything he tells Mr. Trump, or the next President, will be confidential.
The first leak of a Trump phone call came in his first days in office after he spoke with previous Australian Prime Minister Malcolm Turnbull. Then his call to Mexico’s President was leaked. The White House then decided to protect the secrecy of those calls by putting them onto a separate system, which seems justified given the leaks. Yet now this too is said to be part of the cover up.
Once again we see the irony that in the rush to impeach Mr. Trump for his real or imagined violations of political norms, his opponents have no problem violating norms themselves. The Clinton campaign could pay to dig up foreign dirt because Mr. Trump was a unique threat to the country. The FBI could use the dirt to justify a FISA Court warrant because Mr. Trump might have colluded with Russia. Obama officials could unmask the names of Trump officials and leak them to the press because, well, they’re Trump officials. Judges can ignore the separation of powers because Mr. Trump demagogues about immigration.
And now any bureaucrat who hears about a conversation can file a complaint that overrides a President’s ability to speak with foreign leaders with the expectation of privacy. We are in dangerous constitutional waters, and not only because of Donald Trump. In the urgency to oust Donald Trump, anything goes.
++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++
2) Iran Opens a Second Front Along Israel’s Border
The Islamic Revolutionary Guard Corps and its proxies control Syrian land near the Golan Heights.
Israel is fighting off Iranian expansion across the Middle East, but danger for the Jewish state lurks near its own borders. Painstaking work by Iran’s Islamic Revolutionary Guard Corps and their loyal proxies has succeeded in laying the groundwork for a second Iranian front with Israel in the Golan Heights.
The first front is to Israel’s north in South Lebanon. The Golan, which Israel won from Syria in 1967, lies further east. Though Israel rules the skies, the Syrian land adjoining Israel’s border appears increasingly to belong to Iran. Reports from both Israelis and Syrian opposition groups have revealed glimpses of the methods the Iranians and their allies have employed to build a military infrastructure on the Syrian side of the Golan.
One is “The Iranian Conquest of Syria,” a report published last month by the Jerusalem Center for Public Affairs. The authors are two retired senior Israeli military intelligence officers, Brig. Gen. Shimon Shapira and Col. Jacques Neriah. They explain how Iranian and Hezbollah fighters have crept methodically westward from the Syrian lava field of Lajat, 40 miles from the Golan Heights in Syria’s southwest, to the broken nation’s Quneitra province, which is even closer.
The Iranian element, made up of the Revolutionary Guard, Lebanese Hezbollah and the local Syrians they have recruited, is tightly woven into the border villages and the official Syrian security forces. That much is clear from the locations of the four permanent bases used by Lebanese Hezbollah in southwest Syria. One is at Al Haraq, within an area controlled and maintained by the Syrian army’s 52nd Brigade. Two others are in the Lajat area. These are used to train locally recruited fighters and store short- and medium-range missiles.
The fourth base is in Quneitra, outside Al Hadr, about 3 miles from the Israeli border. According to the Israeli researchers, the base is protected by the Quneitra Hawks Brigade, which is part of the Syrian National Defense Forces, a reserve army established by Iranian commander Qasem Soleimani. The base is situated within a position of the Syrian army’s 90th Brigade and used mainly for intelligence gathering and eavesdropping.Before the Syrian civil war, the Golan border was manned by sleepy, poorly equipped and largely inactive Syrian conscripts. After July 2018, when Syria routed rebels from the area, a very different force arrived. An Israeli resident of the Golan deeply engaged in security activity in the area gave the author a ground-level view of the new deployments from the other side of the border. He described the surprise of local Israeli security activists, who found well-equipped and professionally deployed fighters patrolling close to the frontier. Gen. Shapira and Col. Neriah believe these fighters to be Hezbollah members and note that they established new positions only 200 meters from the first positions of the United Nations’ monitoring force.
The new Iranian-allied infrastructure near Israel’s border goes together with its intensive recruitment campaign among local young men. In poverty-stricken southwest Syria, the $250 a month offered by Hajj Hashem, the Hezbollah commander in the area, is a tempting prospect.
The first discordant notes about an Iranian advance near the Golan were heard in November 2018, when the opposition website SyrianObserver noted a large Iranian base under construction in the Lajat area. Apparently the Iraqi Shiite militia Asaib Ahl al-Haq and Lebanese Hezbollah, operating on behalf of the Iranians, “destroyed about 650 houses and cleared out a number of villages in Lajat, leveling them to the ground, to create an area of 30 square kilometers. In these villages, the Iran-backed militias prepared training barracks and warehouses for weapons and ammunition, in order to make this area into a military base for foreign Iran-backed militias to be based.” SyrianObserver claimed the fighters traveled to Lajat under the protection of Iran’s Revolutionary Guard all the way from the Iraq-Syria border crossing at Abu Kamal, which Israel reportedly bombed earlier this month.
Perhaps this attack will stem the Iranian advance, but the evidence suggests that Tehran has taken major strides in the past year. Wound into the civilian and military infrastructure of southwest Syria, Iran has already established a second front with Israel.
Once an Israeli government emerges from coalition wrangling, it will need to confront this new and rising challenge by its doorstep. Aerial bombing won’t be enough.
Mr. Spyer is director of the Middle East Center for Reporting and Analysis and a research fellow at the Jerusalem Institute for Strategy and Security and at the Middle East Forum. He is author of “Days of the Fall: A Reporter’s Journey in the Syria and Iraq Wars.”
++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++
3)
For years, our leaders had yawned about Silk Road neo-imperialism in Africa and Asia, and gross abuses of human rights against Chinese religious minorities and political dissidents.
Almost every assumption Washington made, both by Democratic and Republican administrations, was logically flawed at best. And at worst, these calculations were a weird mix of conservative commercial greed, liberal political correctness and shared screwball naivete.
American trade and political appeasement were never interpreted by Beijing as magnanimity to be reciprocated, but always as weakness to be exploited. It was always ludicrous to think that the more concessions on trade and human rights the United States gave, the more China would Westernize and begin to resemble America or an EU nation.
Even sillier was the old shibboleth that China's embrace of capitalist reforms -- as if by some unwritten, determinist economic law -- would lead to constitutional government. But the ability to buy a new cellphone never ensures the right to vote for a candidate of one's choice.
Instead, all China did was auction off large sections of its new and more efficient economy to crony communist pseudo-capitalists and corrupt provincial officials in order to modernize the country, beef up the military, warp the international trading system -- and make itself very rich.
Why did America act in such a suicidal way on China?
Cheap Chinese labor and lax American laws motivated hundreds of U.S. corporations to shut down their domestic assembly plants and relocate to China. At least at first, they were free to pay substandard wages and were mostly unregulated.
Once American businesses got hooked on mega-profits, the Chinese government slowly started stealing their technology, infringing on copyrights and patents, dumping their own merchandise on the world market at prices below production costs, running up huge trade surpluses and manipulating their currency.
But by then, American corporations were so addicted to laissez-faire profit-making that they turned a blind eye and paid their hush money.
Universities cashed in too, both by setting up lucrative satellite campuses in China and admitting tens of thousands of Chinese citizens. These Chinese students paid full tuition (and sometimes premiums and surcharges), turning once cash-strapped campuses into profitable degree mills.
Most college deans and presidents simply ignored the dreadful human rights record of China, not to mention occasional expatriate espionage rings designed to steal engineering and high-tech research.
If profits had blinded corporations to exploitive Chinese partnerships, political correctness conveniently offered academia and the media political cover -- as if a mostly monoracial China was a 1.3 billion-person diverse "other" with historical grievances against a supposedly racist America.
The result was that everyone profited and all remained willfully blind to the ascendant cutthroat and dictatorial colossus.
The domestic winners in the appeasement of Communist China were the two American coasts -- the New York financial industry, the Washington political lobbying nexus, Silicon Valley's high-tech companies, and the coastal mega-research universities such Harvard, Stanford and Yale.
Suddenly, the intellectual and informational classes could sell their wares in a new global market, and they profited enormously.
Few cared about the "losers" in the now-hollowed-out Midwest and in rural America. For corporate America, domestic muscular labor could be easily and cheaply replaced by millions of Chinese workers. Outsourcing and offshoring pulled investment capital out of America and put it overseas, as Chinese-assembled products brought far greater profits.
Academics could not have cared less that the deplorables and the working classes were being wiped out, given their politically incorrect social and cultural views.
What finally woke America up were two unforeseen developments.
First, the Chinese overreached and systematically began militarizing neutral islands in the South China Sea. They derided international commercial treaties.
In racist fashion, they treated Asian and African countries as if they were 19th-century colonies. And they unapologetically lifted technology from America's biggest and most powerful corporations to turn China into something akin to George Orwell's "1984."
Meanwhile, Beijing began rounding up dissidents, cracking down in Hong Kong and "re-educating" millions of Muslims in detention camps. All that brazenness finally drove the left to drop its multicultural blinders and accept the truth of renegade Chinese oppression.
Second, Donald Trump got elected president, all the while screaming that the Chinese emperor had no clothes. The cheerleaders finally listened and admitted that China had been buck naked after all.
Now we will learn whether America woke up just in time or too late. Either way, no one will credit the loud Trump for warning that China was threatening not just the U.S. but the world as we have known it
+++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++
3)
How China 'Woke' America
By Victor Davis Hanson
In these times of near civil war, Americans agree on almost nothing. Yet sometime in 2019, almost all of America finally got "woke" on China.
For years, our leaders had yawned about Silk Road neo-imperialism in Africa and Asia, and gross abuses of human rights against Chinese religious minorities and political dissidents.
Almost every assumption Washington made, both by Democratic and Republican administrations, was logically flawed at best. And at worst, these calculations were a weird mix of conservative commercial greed, liberal political correctness and shared screwball naivete.
American trade and political appeasement were never interpreted by Beijing as magnanimity to be reciprocated, but always as weakness to be exploited. It was always ludicrous to think that the more concessions on trade and human rights the United States gave, the more China would Westernize and begin to resemble America or an EU nation.
Even sillier was the old shibboleth that China's embrace of capitalist reforms -- as if by some unwritten, determinist economic law -- would lead to constitutional government. But the ability to buy a new cellphone never ensures the right to vote for a candidate of one's choice.
Instead, all China did was auction off large sections of its new and more efficient economy to crony communist pseudo-capitalists and corrupt provincial officials in order to modernize the country, beef up the military, warp the international trading system -- and make itself very rich.
Why did America act in such a suicidal way on China?
Cheap Chinese labor and lax American laws motivated hundreds of U.S. corporations to shut down their domestic assembly plants and relocate to China. At least at first, they were free to pay substandard wages and were mostly unregulated.
Once American businesses got hooked on mega-profits, the Chinese government slowly started stealing their technology, infringing on copyrights and patents, dumping their own merchandise on the world market at prices below production costs, running up huge trade surpluses and manipulating their currency.
But by then, American corporations were so addicted to laissez-faire profit-making that they turned a blind eye and paid their hush money.
Universities cashed in too, both by setting up lucrative satellite campuses in China and admitting tens of thousands of Chinese citizens. These Chinese students paid full tuition (and sometimes premiums and surcharges), turning once cash-strapped campuses into profitable degree mills.
Most college deans and presidents simply ignored the dreadful human rights record of China, not to mention occasional expatriate espionage rings designed to steal engineering and high-tech research.
If profits had blinded corporations to exploitive Chinese partnerships, political correctness conveniently offered academia and the media political cover -- as if a mostly monoracial China was a 1.3 billion-person diverse "other" with historical grievances against a supposedly racist America.
The result was that everyone profited and all remained willfully blind to the ascendant cutthroat and dictatorial colossus.
Suddenly, the intellectual and informational classes could sell their wares in a new global market, and they profited enormously.
Few cared about the "losers" in the now-hollowed-out Midwest and in rural America. For corporate America, domestic muscular labor could be easily and cheaply replaced by millions of Chinese workers. Outsourcing and offshoring pulled investment capital out of America and put it overseas, as Chinese-assembled products brought far greater profits.
Academics could not have cared less that the deplorables and the working classes were being wiped out, given their politically incorrect social and cultural views.
What finally woke America up were two unforeseen developments.
First, the Chinese overreached and systematically began militarizing neutral islands in the South China Sea. They derided international commercial treaties.
In racist fashion, they treated Asian and African countries as if they were 19th-century colonies. And they unapologetically lifted technology from America's biggest and most powerful corporations to turn China into something akin to George Orwell's "1984."
Meanwhile, Beijing began rounding up dissidents, cracking down in Hong Kong and "re-educating" millions of Muslims in detention camps. All that brazenness finally drove the left to drop its multicultural blinders and accept the truth of renegade Chinese oppression.
Second, Donald Trump got elected president, all the while screaming that the Chinese emperor had no clothes. The cheerleaders finally listened and admitted that China had been buck naked after all.
Now we will learn whether America woke up just in time or too late. Either way, no one will credit the loud Trump for warning that China was threatening not just the U.S. but the world as we have known it
3a) Who is more technologically advanced The USA or China ...
https://www.quora.com/Who-is-more-technologically-advanced-The-USA-or-China
Aug 13, 2018 · China is, and by far. The gap between China and USA when it comes to everything (except military tech) is very huge, and overall China has the lead. If you only talk about military tech, Korea is first in the world, and USA behind them, then follo...
3b) Future of Education is Brighter in China, the U.S. Should ...
3c) China vs Japan - Military Power Comparison 2019 - YouTube
3d) Why China is beating the U.S. at innovation - usatoday.com
3e) 40 Ways That China Is Beating America - Infowars
Feb 11, 2013 · The following are 40 ways that China is beating America… #1 As I mentioned above, when you total up all imports and exports of goods, China is now the number one trading nation on the entire planet. #2 During 2012, we sold about 110 billion dollars worth of stuff to the Chinese, but they sold about 425 billion dollars worth of stuff to us
No comments:
Post a Comment