The Myth of Voter Suppression | PragerU
+++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++
Georgia's Governor chose his own candidate to be our next interim Senator. How that will play out with Trump and party conservatives, who favored Rep. Collins, remains to be seen.
Gov. Kemp's choice is a woman and that might be a plus but she is also considered a RINO and that could be a negative.
Time will tell. (See 1 below.)
+++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++
A rational plea to irrational politicians. Is anyone listening?
BIBI may not be perfect but it is tragic what hypocrites are doing both to him and Israel just as it is with those who have plotted against and hate Trump.
If self-serving evil doers succeed in seditious acts you can kiss America and Israel goodbye.(See 2, 2a and 2b below.)
++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++
This op ed was sent to me by a friend and fellow memo reader.
I found it an interesting and insightful article. However, I do not totally agree because the two presidents have such different personalities dictating their actions. and policies. Obama is an intelligent "Music Man." Trump is a street-smart pragmatist.
I believe Trump's flirt with bankruptcy and his leveraged personal financial picture has made him very sensitive to America's financial plight which restricts our ability on many levels and poses a threat to our national security. Though deficits continue under Trump, I believe he is enslaved by a Democrat House and Republicans of many stripes and selfish strains who love spending money because it get's them elected.
Obama spent money with abandon because that is what liberal community organizers do and, again, I commend you read Amity Shlaes': "Great Society."
You can never justify spending your way out of debt on ill conceived programs that always boomerang simply because they make their proponents feel good who want to display how much they care.
+++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++
The market re-action we are experiencing is what I mentioned was likely when I made a market comment in a recent memo.
When markets outrun earnings prospects indigestion occurs and that is what we are experiencing now, in my humble viewpoint. When you self-intoxicate quickly - well, you know the rest.
The market has a lot of uncertainty to digest - trade agreement resolutions, impeachment, next year's anticipated earnings, which will not match this year in all probability, election jitters and the prospect of a Democrat victory which would play havoc with the economy are just a few spicy morsels to swallow.
++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++
DORIS
++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++
1)
Let’s Clear the Air on Kelly Loeffler, Brian Kemp, and Georgia
In three-card monte, a skilled shuffler moves three cards around on a deck and it is hard to keep track of which is which. Often the key card gets swiped from the table to ensure the odds are against the player. It’s a great card trick. In Georgia, we have a three-card monte going on […]
The post Let’s Clear the Air on Kelly Loeffler, Brian Kemp, and Georgia appeared first on The Resurgent.
Read in browser »
+++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++
2) A tale of two countries
DR. JOSEPH FRAGER
Our real enemies are rejoicing at our chaotic behavior – it is high time both Israel and the United States woke up and stopped the madness.
It is no coincidence that as US President Donald Trump’s impeachment inquiry raged in the House Permanent Select Committee on Intelligence, in Israel, Prime Minister Netanyahu was being indicted in Israel on charges of fraud, bribery, and breach of trust by Attorney General Avichai Mendelblit.
Mendelblit happens to be an old friend and appointee of Netanyahu’s, a fact that makes the story even harder to swallow. Unfortunately, this is the state of politics in 2019.
It’s more than just polarized partisanship, more than overheated rhetoric, more than an exhausting 24-hour news cycle or social media overload. Having witnessed this phenomenon firsthand, I can tell you that it is ripping apart the very fabric of both America and Israel. It is cruel and unusual punishment that anyone in public life is either now enduring or will have to contend with in the future. It will deter good, decent people from entering the political arena. To call it a slugfest does not do it justice; to call it unmitigated hatred is an understatement.
If they can’t beat you at the ballot box, then why not try to destroy you personally with imaginary tales? I am afraid this is precisely what is happening both in America and Israel.
In the past, faced with such smears, public figures for the most part just called it a day and closed up shop. Today, because the truth is buried beneath piles and piles of rubbish, strong leaders like Trump and Netanyahu counterpunch and dig in for the long haul; voters see more clearly than the media and will ultimately decide their fate.
The impeachment saga has actually boosted Trump and made his winning a second term more likely. The Democrats have taken note and have begun to pull in the reins a little. The indictment of Netanyahu has not had quite the same effect. It has made Israel’s third election this year more difficult to call.
If Israel had a direct election for prime minister, which might indeed be among the ultimate outcomes of the current stalemate in Israeli politics, then Netanyahu would win easily. Unfortunately, the third election, scheduled for January, is no sure thing.
Once again, Yisrael Beytenu leader Avigdor Lieberman plays the role of bête noire and spoiler. The Arab parties will gain even more seats; they have learned a thing or two since the Knesset was organized 70 years ago.
Once again, I plea to Lieberman: For the sake of the Jewish people, give up your defiant stance and join Netanyahu, who was responsible for bringing you into politics in the first place.
Hopefully, both America and Israel will learn that attacking a public figure with exaggerated claims and charges, untruths and outright hatred is not in the best interest of our civilization. It brings us all down. We all bear responsibility for what is tearing us apart. Our real enemies are rejoicing at our chaotic behavior, and it is high time to wake up and stop the madness.
2a) Durham Needs to Bring Indictments
There is new evidence that U.S. Attorney John Durham is getting to the root of criminal abuses by senior U.S. law enforcement and intelligence officials in their conspiracy to undermine the Trump campaign, transition and presidency. Mr. Durham's mandate from Attorney General William Barr -- to uncover the seditious plot behind the Trump-Russia hoax, if pursued vigorously, will uncover the single greatest threat to the Constitution since the nation's founding.
Mr. Durham's apparent interest in FBI source Stefan Halper and the contract vehicles available to the Pentagon think tank, the Office of Net Assessments, for whom Halper worked, is an important clue.
Likewise, Mr. Durham's travel to Italy for talks with the Italian government and their intelligence service points to another possible clue concerning the mysterious Maltese academic, Joseph Mifsud.
For the purposes of the manufactured Trump-Russia hoax, one need only remember the associations of Halper with Trump campaign volunteer Carter Page -- and Joseph Mifsud with George Papadopoulos, a foreign policy junior advisor -- to the Trump campaign.
The intelligence agencies of the federal government are prohibited from targeting American organizations in the United States. Executive Order 12333, Section 2.9 states:
Undisclosed Participation in Organizations Within the United States. No one acting on behalf of agencies within the Intelligence Community may join or otherwise participate in any organization in the United States on behalf of any agency within the Intelligence Community without disclosing his intelligence affiliation to appropriate officials of the organization, except in accordance with procedures established by the head of the agency concerned and approved by the Attorney General. Such participation shall be authorized only if it is essential to achieving lawful purposes as determined by the agency head or designee. No such participation may be undertaken for the purpose of influencing the activity of the organization or its members except in cases where:
(a) The participation is undertaken on behalf of the FBI in the course of a lawful investigation; or
(b) The organization concerned is composed primarily of individuals who are not United States persons and is reasonably believed to be acting on behalf of a foreign power.
This prohibition on running penetration operations against domestic political organizations is a legal and political "hangover" from the 1960s civil disturbances that saw (among a host of other covert action programs) US Army Counterintelligence agents working undercover against the militant Leftists organizations such as Students for a Democratic Society. The U.S. Senate Select Committee to Study Governmental Operations with Respect to Intelligence Activities, better known as the "Church Committee," was impaneled in 1975 under the leadership of Sen. Frank Church (D-ID) to review and make recommendations on intelligence operations. The Church Committee was controversial. Critics claimed the committee exposed the "crown jewels" of U.S. intelligence and hobbled our ability to conduct legitimate collection activities. Today's Foreign Intelligence Surveillance Act and Court were inspired by the final reports of the Church Committee.
The seditious coup plotters working against Trump knew the legal prohibitions on what they planned to do. How to target Trump & Co. in a "legal" manner? Was it possible, or more importantly, desirable, to have a legal finding from Attorney General Loretta Lynch justifying their plan to frame-up Trump & Co.? That would authorize their operation -- but would Lynch support it? Could Lynch be counted on? Did they want a piece of paper like that floating around Washington D.C.? No, there had to be a better way to pull off the coup.
The alternative to a purely domestic intelligence operation targeting a major political party's candidate for the presidency (and later, president) was to manufacture a foreign counterintelligence (FCI) "threat" that could then be "imported" back into the United States. Plausible deniability, the Holy Grail of covert activities, was in reach for the plotters if they could develop an FCI operation outside the continental United States (OCONUS) involving FBI confidential human sources (Halper, Mifsud, others?) that would act as "lures" (intelligence jargon associated with double agent operations) to ensnare Trump associates.
We have evidence of these machinations from December 2015 when FBI lawyer Lisa Page texts to her boyfriend, the now infamous FBI Special Agent Peter Strzok, "You get all our oconus lures approved?"
To inoculate themselves from further charges of misconduct and criminality, the FBI's mutually agreed upon lie is that their investigation of Trump/Russia began on July 31, 2016 with the improbable name "Crossfire Hurricane." That coincides nicely with their manufactured FCI "event," allowing the full-bore sabotage of all things and persons "Trump." The coup plotters used a July 2016 event at the University of Cambridge as the opportunity for Carter Page to meet and develop a friendship with Stefan Halper. This is roughly the same time period that Australian diplomat Alexander Downer reported the supposedly drunken ramblings of George Papadopoulos concerning the Russians having Hillary's emails to the FBI. Papadopoulos had already serendipitously met the mysterious Joseph Mifsud in Rome during the second week of March 2016. Learning that Papadopoulos would be joining the Trump campaign, Mifsud let Papadopoulos know that he had many important connections with Russian government officials.
In July 2019, Special Counsel Robert Mueller was questioned closely by Rep. Jim Jordan (R-OH) concerning the persons and sequence of events detailed above.
The summation of Mueller's testimony was, "Well, I can't get into it."
The coup plot failed, but the chief coup conspirators are free, crisscrossing the country on book tours and appearing as paid contributors to CNN and MSNBC. A bright note in the so far grim saga is that one of the collateral casualties has filed a civil lawsuit in the Eastern District of Virginia against Stefan Halper and MSNBC for defamation, conspiracy and tortious interference. It's the closest thing we've seen to justice to date. The complaint makes remarkable and insightful reading.
It is now time for Mr. Durham to "get into it," in a manner Mr. Mueller was either unwilling or unable to do. Time is of the utmost importance. The American public needs to see action. Indictments and trials are the only antidote for the poison of treasonous sedition.
Chris Farrell is a former counterintelligence case officer. For the past 20 years, he has served as the Director of Investigations & Research for Judicial Watch. The views expressed are the author's alone, and not necessarily those of Judicial Watch.
2b) After Trump Call, Netanyahu Says Israel Has Chance to Realize ‘Historic Opportunities’
During a visit to the southern city of Ashkelon on Monday, Israeli Prime Minister Benjamin Netanyahu revealed some of the details of his telephone call with US President Donald Trump the previous day.
Netanyahu described the exchange as “a very important conversation for the security of Israel.”
“We discussed Iran, but we also spoke at length about the historic opportunities that we will have in the coming months,” the Israeli leader added. “Among them — the Jordan Valley as the recognized eastern border of the State of Israel as well as a defensive alliance with the US. These are things that we could only dream about, but we have the possibility of implementing them.”
Netanyahu then called on Benny Gantz — head of the centrist Blue and White alliance – to join a unity government with his right-wing Likud party so Israel could “realize these historic opportunities” and avoid a third round of Knesset elections.
Later in the day, Gantz commented, “Our commitment to the Jordan Valley, as the security barrier along our eastern border, is not related to the seating arrangements around the government table, but rather for the security of the State of Israel.”
As for a potential security pact with the US, Gantz said his party “does not support any agreement that will limit operations undertaken by the State of Israel or the ability of the IDF to defend itself against the threats it faces.”
“I have a strong appreciation for our strategic relationship with the United States, our great ally with whom we share deeply rooted values and common interests,” Gantz noted. “But there arise serious concerns that a prime minister preoccupied by his own affairs may permit the limitation of our security forces’ freedom of action, in clear contradiction to the position held by our security mechanisms for decades.”
3)Trump, Obama and their battle with the‘blob’
By GIDEON RACHMAN
The Nato summit underlines a surprising continuity in US
foreign policy
Both men would detest the thought. But, in crucial respects, the foreign policies of Donald
Trump and Barack Obama are looking strikingly similar.
The wildly different styles of the two presidents have disguised the underlying continuities
between their approaches to the world. But look at substance, rather than style, and the
similarities are impressive.
Both Mr Obama and Mr Trump have sought to disengage the US from the Middle East — a
policy that has caused much tut-tutting in the Washington establishment, the group derisively
labelled “the blob” in the Obama White House. As they pulled back from the Middle East, both presidents focused on Asia instead. Mr Obama strove to make a “pivot” to Asia the signature foreign-policy of his period in office. And Mr Trump has also made his two biggest foreign policy plays in Asia — through a trade war with China and nuclear talks with North Korea. Increasing suspicion of China and growing concern about the Korean nuclear programme were also themes of the late Obama years.
The two presidents have both had to appeal to an electorate that is profoundly war-weary. As a result, both Mr Obama and Mr Trump tried to cut back on America’s global military
commitments in ways that have alarmed not just the blob, but America’s allies too.
That concern underpins the uneasy atmosphere as the Nato alliance gathers for a summit in the UK this week. Mr Trump’s vocal discontent with Nato is often portrayed as a stark departure from the American norm. But it was actually Mr Obama’s defence secretary, Robert Gates, who warned in 2011 that the future of the alliance would be “dismal” if Europeans continued to rely on the Americans for their security.
The similarities between the two presidents’ instincts has become clearer since Mr Trump
sacked the bellicose John Bolton as his national security adviser in September. The crucial
disagreements between Mr Trump and Mr Bolton concerned the president’s eagerness to pursue negotiations with Iran, North Korea and the Taliban in Afghanistan. The hawkish Mr Bolton was appalled. But Mr Trump is determined to press ahead. The result is that, after his warlike “fire and fury” phase, Mr Trump is now pursuing a diplomacy-first strategy that is strongly reminiscent of Mr Obama.
Foreign policy caution inevitably leads to clashes with the blob — Mr Obama was attacked for “weakness” and Mr Trump has been lambasted for “isolationism”. The debate over Afghanistan illustrates the point. Both Mr Obama and Mr Trump came to office very skeptical of the case for continued military involvement. Both presidents were then persuaded to send more troops — only to start pulling them out again, later in their presidencies.
The story of two cancelled air strikes underlines their joint caution. Mr Obama’s last-minute
decision in 2013 to cancel a bombing raid on Syria, intended to punish President Bashar al-
Assad for using chemical weapons, was widely denounced by the Washington establishment.
When Mr Trump ordered some air strikes on Assad regime targets in 2018, in response to
another chemical attack, he got bipartisan praise in Washington for correcting Mr Obama’s
“error”.
But these raids were just one-off gestures that did nothing to change the trajectory of the war in Syria.
More recently, Mr Trump also made a last-minute decision to ignore his advisers and cancel an air strike, this time on Iran, after balking at the likely level of casualties. Mr Trump’s reluctance to attack Iran was significant. It underlines the fact that his tough-guy rhetoric disguises a strong preference for diplomacy over force. The fact that Mr Trump and Mr Obama arrived at similar policies of pullback from the Middle East is crucial — given that the region has long dominated US foreign policy.
On other issues, however, there are important differences between the two presidents. Mr Obama believed in the importance of international agreements, while Mr Trump is highly sceptical of them. He has pulled the US out of the Paris climate treaty and a host of other international accords.
The Trump administration’s ardent protectionism also represents a break not just with Mr
Obama, but with every other US presidency since 1945. However, Mr Trump seems to be in tune with the spirit of the times. The leading candidates for the Democratic nomination are now also embracing protectionism and a more hostile attitude to China.
This bipartisan embrace of protectionism is the economic equivalent of the Obama-Trump
convergence on pulling back from the Middle East. Both policies are products of a declining
confidence in America’s ability to emerge triumphant in economic or military competition with foreign rivals. The result is the adoption of more defensive and inward-looking policies.
Since the Trump and Obama camps revile each other, it remains a political and psychological
necessity for both sides to ignore any convergence between their foreign policies. But when
historians look back at the two presidencies, they will surely notice the underlying continuities.
In their very different ways, both Mr Obama and Mr Trump have reduced America’s global
commitments — and adjusted the US to a more modest international role.
+++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++
No comments:
Post a Comment