My Friend Robbie Has Published A Book of His Mother's Letters!

Robbie is a long time friend, fellow memo reader and one of my best critics.  He keeps me factually straight.

He has written a book about his mother and some recent letters he discovered she had written.  I am posting his comments for anyone interested as well as a review of his book.

Dr. Robbie Friedmann (Professor Emeritus of Criminal Justice and Director, Georgia International Law Enforcement Exchange, Georgia State University, Atlanta, Georgia) has a new book entitled: 28 Letters: The Short Life Of Renée (Baba) Friedmann On Not So Calm Waters.

This book follows the discovery of 28 letters that my mother wrote to her sister. The story behind these letters encompasses far more than two sisters exchanging letters. It has to do partly with the period (1941 - 1947) during which these letters were written (namely, pre-deportation, the Holocaust, and post-Holocaust), partly from where the letters were written (Hungary, Romania, and Sweden), partly to where they were addressed (Palestine), and to a much larger part to the fact that I got to know my mother through these letters.

This book is aimed at telling a personal story to his children, their children and future generations to come. Yet it is also a story that has relevance to many who shared a similar destiny and even more to so, to those who need to know about it.

The book is about how people who lived through the horrors of the holocaust, the infliction of Communism, and the tyranny of the British Mandate in Palestine, coped with the challenge of living beyond surviving. It is also a testament to the victory of humanity and the human spirit over evil.

The book is in English, Hungarian and Hebrew and includes original documents and photos.

The book is available in hard copy at http://www.blurb.com/b/3253895-28-letters

It is also available as an eBook for the iPad or iPhone at http://store.blurb.com/ebooks/334936-28-letters

.

The following is the book review:

http://www.familysecuritymatters.org/publications/detail/how-to-avoid-a-disaster-of-a-disaster-two-book-reviews?f=must_reads

----
When Britain was having its never ending economic crisis Churchill visited his economic adviser - Hyman Goldberg, in Miami. They were sitting on the beach and Hyman asked Winnie what was the problem and why had he come.  Winnie laid out England's dire plight and said the Empire was collapsing .  Goldberg thought for a minute and then advised Winnie to put Canada in the Queen's name.

Those who understand tax and bankruptcy laws will understand.

What has this to do with posting  1 below? The Palestinians never cease their effort to deligitimize Israel's claim to Jerusalem as its Capital so now the Palestinians want to put Jerusalem in Jordan's name.

I am not as learned as Goldberg so my response to Abbas and the Palestinians, who are morally bankrupt, is screw em! (See 1 below.)

But, you can never top the nut cases in Iran!  (See 1a below.)
---
A reminder to Obama.  (See 2 below.)
---
How big of the Saudis!:Saudi women can ride bikes 

Women must be accompanied by male relative, dressed in robe to ride bikes, paper says


Hope they are permitted to see where they are going!
---
A recent GallupPoll revealed Republicans believe their party is too inflexible but then they also believe their party gives in too easily as well.  I believe I understand the distinction made by those who were polled.

It seems they would like their party to recognize reality and change where doing so would win votes and elections but they also would like their party to re-craft its message while hanging  tough when it comes to principles.

Republicans have many problems and the poll reveals there is a schism within Republican ranks. R's need to learn how to recast their message in more salable ways.

Let's face it. Democrats are as inflexible and actually more so but they are inflexible about their desire to continue giving and  spending. Since people like to receive Democrats are seen as compassionate. Republican inflexibility often relates to demands made upon citizens ie. self-reliance, patriotism, being a good citizen, being responsible etc.

The press and media also contribute to the problem R's have because of their  bias. All too frequently the press and media couch R's in a negative light and everything D's do in a more positive way.

R's will continue to have a problem until they are able to change voter perceptions. R's have the better message, they have evidence on their side but they cannot penetrate voters who are emotional not rational so R's have to present their rational case in a way that has emotional appeal.

I refer you to back to the ad our ad hoc group presented during the presidential campaign.  It showed a family around the dinner table and the scene conveyed the imagery of an out of work husband and his two children wanting their favorite food and the mother telling them their dad was unemployed and they had to pull their belts in etc.

It left the viewer to reach their own conclusions because it did not attack D's etc. (See 3 below)
---
I believe gays are entitled to every right straights have but I do not believe their desire to co-habit with those of the same sex allows them the right to appropriate the definition of marriage.

If that means laws should be change to reflect their actions are defined as a civil union with all the rights and privileges of those who are married, fine. Change the laws.

Neither would I have a problem if a human chose to live with an animal as long as the law sanctioned such behaviour but I would object if the law claimed the couple were married or engaged in a civil union. I might willingly agree to the term 'bizarre union' as being appropriate.

I believe it is a dangerous principle to allow differences to be characterized under a reserved/defined umbrella.  Just because Catholics worship God does not give them the right to call themselves Jews nor Jews to call themselves Catholics etc. Both may be engaged in worshiping their God but the distinction of how they are referred to or identify themselves should remain. (See 4 below.)
---
Dick
---------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------
1)Palestinians kick off Jerusalem bid by ceding Holy Sites Custodianship to Jordan’s kin

An  historic agreement signed in Amman Sunday, March 31, between Palestinian leader Mahmoud Abbas and Jordan’s King Abdullah II takes a new stand on Jerusalem - one of the core issues subject to negotiation with Israel - by accepting the king as Custodian of the city’s Holy Sites. The Palestinians agreed that Abdullah “will oversee and manage the Waqf (Muslim religious authority) in Jerusalem” and represent the interests of the Holy Sites “in relevant international forums… through feasible legal means.”

Where the Palestinian (Wafa) and Jordanian (Petra) versions of the same agreement differ is over the definition of “Palestinian sovereignty.”

By this document, the Palestinian leader and the king have laid the foundation for a mixed Arab-Palestinian-Israeli framework for managing the shrines holy to Jews (who are not mentioned), Muslims and Christians in Jerusalem. It has opened the door to what many will be perceive as a proposal to internationalize Jerusalem’s sanctuaries, a status affirmed but never honored from 1948 to 1967.

This foundation will not only raise strong Israeli objections but also be challenged by many Palestinians and therefore will have to last a long and tortuous course to survive.

Its importance lies in that the Palestinian Authority has taken the historically momentous step of ceding to the Hashemite throne the custodianship - religious, political, legal, and security - of the Muslim shrines on Temple Mount with authority over the Palestinian Waqf.  

It means that henceforth, instead of the Palestinian Authority, Israel will have to engage the Jordanian government in discussions of matters pertaining to Temple Mount, especially hyper-sensitive security arrangements.
This should not be too much of a stretch since in practice, Israeli and Jordanian intelligence have cooperated quietly on such issues for many years.

The Hashemite House comes out of the accord with Palestinian recognition for the first time as the Custodian of the Holy Places of Jerusalem, especially the Mosque of al Aqsa, a title which parallels the Saudi king’s traditional title as Guardian of the Holy Places to Islam in Mecca and Medina.

The degree of US Secretary of State John Kerry’s involvement in Jordanian-Palestinian accord is still to be determined and also whether Israeli Prime Minister Binyamin Netanyahu and Justice Minister Tzipi Livni (in charge of negotiations with the Palestinians) were privy to its substance.

The Arab League summit meeting in Doha March 26-27, which debated the dormant Saudi Peace Plan,  was certainly not in the picture. Those rulers now have much to chew on.

A confederation plan for a Palestinian West Bank state and Jordan was the real subject of Prime Minister Binyamin Netanyahu’s recent conversation with King Abdullah in Amman,sources reveal – not Syria. This idea has become a focal talking point in Amman, Washington and Palestinian centers. It ties in with the report from US and Jordanian sources that Israel and the Palestinians will resume talks in the spring.

The new Abbas-Abdullah accord appears to be a strong move towards bringing this plan to fruition.

That it is a practical document and not just a declaration is indicated by the detailed definition of the Custodian’s purview appearing in the Jordanian version:

“Recalling the unique religious importance to all Muslims of al-Masjid al-Aqsa with its 144 dunams including include the Qibil Mosque of al-Aqsa, the Mosque of the Dome of the Rock and all its mosques, buildings, walls, courtyards, attached areas over and beneath the ground (a hint at Israeli archeological digs for the Biblical city and Temple)…”

Jordan and Palestine also pledged “all efforts to protect Jerusalem and its Holy Sites from Israeli escalatory Judaisation” – according to another clause in the Petra version.

On at least one very important point the Palestinian and Jordanian communiqués varied significantly:

According to PA Minister of Waqf and Religious Affairs Mahmoud Habash, “The agreement confirmed Jordan’s historic role in caring for the religious sanctuaries. It also confirmed Palestinian sovereignty over all of Palestine, including East Jerusalem as its capital.”

However, Article 3:3.1 of the agreement published in full by Jordan puts it this way: “The Government of the State of Palestine, as the expression of the right of self-determination of the Palestinian people, shall have the right to exercise sovereignty over all parts of its territory, including Jerusalem.

While hailing their accord as a historic breakthrough, the Palestinian and Jordanian leaders will obviously need to get all parts of their act together before they face Israel.

1a)

Iranian Official: The Loss Of Syria Will Lead To The Loss Of Tehran Itself; Syria Is An Iranian Province; Iran Has Formed A 60,000-Strong Syrian Basij; Israel Is Our Only Threat By: Y. Mansharof*

Introduction On February 13, 2013, Mehdi Taeb, the head of Iranian Supreme Leader Ali Khamenei's Ammar Base think tank and the brother of Islamic Revolutionary Guard Corps (IRGC) intelligence bureau director Hossein Taeb, delivered a speech at a Basij conference in Mashhad, Iran, on Syria's importance to the Iranian regime. In his speech, he defined Syria as a strategic Iranian province, and said that preserving the existence of the Syrian regime was even more important to the Iranian regime than preserving the oil-rich southern Iranian province of Khuzestan – despite the latter's strategic and economic importance. Taeb also stressed that if Iran's enemies were to attack both Syria and Khuzestan, Tehran would prefer to preserve Syria, since its loss would lead to the loss of Tehran itself. He added that that Iran had helped to establish a 60,000-man Basij force in Syria which is fighting the rebels alongside the regime of Syrian President Bashar Al-Assad. Reviewing regional and superregional threats to Tehran, Taeb assessed that right now, Israel – not the U.S. – constitutes the only serious threat. Tehran, he says, is successfully hobbling Israel by means of Hizbullah, and added that the U.S. will never attack Iran because it lacks the military manpower to do so, and also because of its shaky economy. Mehdi Taeb's speech on Snn.ir.[1] Taeb's view of Syria's strategic importance to the Iranian regime was earlier expressed by Ali Akbar Velayati, advisor to Iranian Supreme Leader Ali Khamenei, on February 8, 2013: "Iran has planned its defensive positions outside its own borders, and has linked its fate to the fate of the Islamic countries; this is why it will support those such as [Syrian President] Bashar Al-Assad to the end..."[2] Taeb's statements triggered harsh criticism from conservative and reformist circles alike; they claimed that he is harming Iranian sovereignty with his willingness to relinquish precious parts of the homeland and that his statements support the Arab claim that Khuzestan is not part of Iran. They also said that his statements support the claim by enemies of Iran that the Iranian regime is oppressing its own citizens at home using the Basij, and that the statements confirm claims that Iran is now supporting the oppression of civilians in Syria. In response to the criticism, Taeb said in three separate interviews with Iranian media that his statements had been distorted, but did not retract them: "The foreign media and the anti-[Iranian] regime media are helpless to deal with the Iranian regime, and therefore they distort statements made by Iranians[3]... Iran's position regarding the developments in Syria is completely clear, and my statement was a political and strategic analysis."[4] Following are excerpts from Taeb's statements on Syria's strategic importance to Iran:[5] Syria – A "Strategic Province" Of Iran "Syria is [Iran's] 35th province, and it is a strategic province for us. If the enemy attacks us and wants to take Syria or Khuzestan, our top priority will be to preserve Syria. By preserving Syria, we will be able to retake Khuzestan – but if we lose Syria, we will not be able to preserve Tehran... "Syria has an army, but it cannot wage the war within Syria's cities. This is why Iran proposed establishing a Basij force, to conduct the fighting in the cities. [So] the 60,000-strong 'Syrian Basij' was established; it has taken over the fighting in the streets from the army..." "It Is Only Israel That Wants To Destroy [Iran], Because We Have Said From The Outset That We Do Not Want Israel To Exist" "Today, there is only one threat to us, and that is the Zionist regime. It has the motivation and the capability to attack [Iran], and there is nothing preventing it from doing so. None of our neighboring countries – Afghanistan, Pakistan, Iraq, or Saudi Arabia – has either the money or the [military] strength [to attack us]; thus, we are not facing any regional threat. "[However,] in the superregional arena, we see the U.S. as an enemy that would like to attack us but has neither the funds nor the [military] strength to do so... and it has no manpower to wage a war. "To examine the economic state of a particular country, we must look at its budget proposal... During the Romney-Obama presidential debates, Romney told [Obama]: 'You have ruined the American economy, and amassed $16 trillion in debt – and Iran is now using this economic situation as a club to beat us with.' Obama responded, 'This debt is not my fault, but rather the fault of the American system...' "During [the November 2012 Gaza conflict], the U.S. was in the Mediterranean, but did not come to [Israel's] aid. This is because if even one [Gaza] rocket had hit one of its warships, the wages of that ship's crew would have automatically doubled. [The U.S.] will never initiate a war against us. "It is only Israel that wants to destroy us, because we have said from the outset that we do not want Israel to exist. Israel has as many nuclear warheads as we do provinces and towns; if they attack us, they will be accountable to no one in the world. "[As to why we have not targeted Israel's nuclear warheads] – this is because we have completely locked up [Israel] with Hizbullah. During the 2006 Lebanon war, the Zionist regime tried to break this lock [i.e. Hizbullah], but after 33 days [of fighting], it gave up, and left [Lebanon]. According to [Hizbullah secretary-general] Hassan Nasrallah, Israel has said that in that war, it used 100% of its capability, while [Hizbullah] used only 4% of its capability." Criticism Of Mehdi Taeb's Statements Khuzestan - The Heart Of Iran – Is Much More Important Than Syria Shokre Khoda Moussavi, the Majlis delegate from the city of Ahvaz, said: "Khuzestan to Iran is like the heart to the body – and one should not ignore the heart... Undoubtedly, while mercenaries and mercenary circles raise the issue of nationalism in regions like Khuzestan, the name of Khuzestan must not be raised, in order to support Syria... "For the Iranian people and for Khuzestan, preserving Iran [with] Khuzestan is much more important than preserving Syria."[6] Taeb Serves The Arab Claim For Sovereignty Over Khuzestan And Encourages The Division Of Iran An article on the website Baztab titled "We Will Not Replace Khuzestan – Not Even With Damascus" claimed that Taeb had disregarded his statements' possible ramifications "for the sensitive province of Khuzestan" following "the [Support for the Ahwazi People] conference held in Cairo, which was held in an attempt to divide Iran." Maintaining that Taeb's statements "are likely to play into the hands of extremist circles in Arab countries, who in recent decades have claimed sovereignty over Arab parts [of Iran]," the article went on to state that Taeb "speaks lightly of the possibility of war, while [Iran] is mobilizing all its capabilities to ease international pressure and to lessen the direct and indirect impact of the sanctions." It continued: "He reduced the [Basij's] rank to [waging] war in the cities, and failed to explain where in Iran this kind of warfare has been used – and now he is recommending that Assad's regime use it... The [story] that Iranian Basij forces are being used [in Syria] is a baseless rumor disseminated by anti-[Iranian] regime media... "The survival of the anti-Zionist regime in Syria is an Iranian strategic principle, because it is [part of] the resistance at the forefront of the battle against the Zionists' expansionist aspirations. No military, diplomatic, or strategic official would ever recommend losing even a single inch of Iran's territory. This is a sensitive issue – and even bringing it up, even if only to underline its importance, encourages division."[7] Taeb Strengthens Iran's Enemies, Who Claim That Iran, Not Assad, Is Running Syria The Iranian website Asr-e Iran accused Taeb of "violating [Iran's] national security and territorial integrity" and of fomenting "separatism." It explained that Taeb "disregarded the [Iranian] blood that has been shed to preserve this precious province [Khuzestan]." The website noted that Taeb's statements "do not help the Syrian regime, but rather weaken its status against its opponents at home... who tell the Syrian people that Bashar Assad is a lackey and an agent of Iran – and Taeb's statements [prove] this. [Assad's opponents in Syria say that] Assad has turned Syria into an Iranian province, and that the sooner we [i.e. Syrians] get rid of the evil of this regime, which is identified with foreigners, the better... "Taeb's statements only whitewash the armed rebels in Syria, who are identified with foreigners, and transforms them from foreign mercenaries into Syrian freedom fighters from Iran, or into fighters aiming to liberate the [Syrian] homeland from foreign rule. "Yesterday, exiled Syrian prime minister Riyad Hijab told Al-Arabiya TV that Syria was occupied by Iran and that it is run not by Assad but by Qassem Suleimani, commander of the [IRGC] Qods Force. Don't Taeb's statements strengthen these anti-Iran claims? "To the best of our knowledge, Iran has 31 official provinces. Where Taeb got 34 provinces, and added Syria as a 35th, we have no idea. Maybe he counted other countries such as Bahrain, Lebanon, and Iraq as Iranian provinces about which we know nothing?"[8] Taeb Was Mistaken And Did Not Explain What He Really Meant An article in the Iranian daily Kayhan, which is close to Supreme Leader Ali Khamenei, claimed that "[Taeb's] mistaken statements about prioritizing Syria over Khuzestan were exploited by the anti-[Iranian] regime media... [Taeb] did not explain exactly what [part of] his statements had been distorted, or what he'd actually meant [to say]. "It is not necessary to demonstrate [the principle of] defending the resistance axis in Syria as opposed to [the principle of] defending the territorial integrity of Khuzestan or any other Iranian province. Syria is not an Iranian province, but it is an important and strategic member of the anti-Israel resistance axis... "It is expected that people be more precise in their words – particularly in professional matters. Sometimes, when they make a mistaken statement, or if their words are [later] twisted, they need to correct them in a timely manner."[9] Taeb Is Serving Arab Claims Of Sovereignty Over Khuzestan The Iranian website Kaleme, which is close to supporters of Mir-Hossein Mousavi, claimed that Taeb had "ignored the ramifications of his statements for international relation [apparently referring to Iran's relations with its Arab neighbors], and for the national and security sensitivity [of Khuzestan]."[10] On another occasion, the website noted that "the political and media pressure on [Taeb] made him blame others, instead of apologizing and correcting his position."[11] The Ahvazis Respond: Ahvaz Will Be Free; Taeb's Statements Prove Iran's Involvement In The Slaughter of The Syrian People In response to Taeb's statements, a separatist Ahvazi website noted: "With these statements, the Persian regime officials have clearly proven that Ahvaz has not always been under Iranian rule – and that right now, occupied Ahvaz is not part of Iran. The regime knows this, and knows that Ahvaz will win its independence."[12] The website of the Ahvazi Democratic Popular Front added: "With his statements, [Taeb] has underlined Iran's direct occupation [of Syria] and Iran's involvement in forming the Basij in Syria... These statements prove Iran's direct involvement in the slaughter of the Syrian people, from the first day of the[ir] Intifada."[13] *Y. Mansharof is a research fellow at MEMRI. Endnotes: [1] Snn.ir, February 13, 2013. [2] Yjc.ir, February 8, 2013. [3] Fars (Iran), February 15, 2013; Tasnim.com, February 16, 2013. [4] Snn.ir, February 16, 2013. [5] Snn.ir, February 13, 2013. [6] Behar (Iran), February 16, 2013. [7] Baztab.net, February 14, 2013. [8] Asr-e Iran (Iran), February 16, 2013. [9] Kayhan (Iran), February 17, 2013. [10] Kaleme (Iran), February 14, 2013. [11] Kaleme (Iran), February 16, 2013. [12] Ahwazna.org, February 16, 2013. [13] Alahwaz.org, February 15, 2013.

-------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------

2)Obama's Trojan Horse

Op-ed: US president seems to have forgotten Israel took great risks when it signed Oslo Accords, withdrew from Gaza

By Shaul Rosenfeld

"I fear Greeks even when they bring gifts," said priest of Apollo at Troy Laocoön when he warned the Trojans in vain against accepting the Trojan Horse. This ancient warning was forgotten by many when American President Barack Obama went to great lengths to stroke our ego and tell we "are not alone."

The problem is that Obama's conduct during his fist term – from his speech in Cairo, to his demand for a construction freeze even in Jerusalem neighborhoods such as Gilo and his complete rejection of Bush's promise to Olmert regarding the settlement blocs, in addition to the initiated confrontations with the Israeli leadership – should raise some suspicions regarding the content of the "presidential horse," and lead us to suspect that behind the compliments and friendly banter hides almost the same man from the previous term

While it is possible that Obama's failed attempts to jump start the "peace process" in his first term, mainly by applying pressure on Israel and hurling accusations at its leaders, contributed to the White House's reexamination of its Mideast policy, it seems that what tipped the scales in favor of changing the behavior toward Israel was the failure of his previous tactic. From here the road to adopting an alternative tactic - which has been proven to be effective by people such as Bill Clinton - was short. Despite the disastrous "Clinton outline," the former American president is still a popular figure in Israel. "Never interrupt a person who is complimenting you," Osho said. Clinton understood this, and all the signs on the ground indicate that Obama has internalized this principle as well.

Obama's hyped visit to Israel and his numerous gestures changed - to a great extent - the negative attitude toward him in Israel, although he has yet to capture the locals' hearts entirely. As far as Obama is concerned, this change in attitude may turn out to be quite beneficial when Israel will be asked to make territorial concessions.

During his "king's speech" in Jerusalem, Obama used some of the same rhetoric we remember from his first term. He spoke of occupation, expulsion and the lost hope of the Palestinians, and he called on young Israelis to pressure their leaders into taking risks for the sake of peace with the Palestinians. Beyond his baseless statement that "political leaders will not take risks if the people do not demand that they do" – throughout history leaders (including American leaders) did not tend to ask the people for their opinion before taking risks – the fact that he told Israel's youngsters "you must create the change that you want to see" is no less than an insolent call for a civil uprising against the legitimate decisions of elected officials in a democratic regime.

Did Israel not take a real risk when it signed the Oslo Accordsand in return received a bloodbath in its cities and periphery? Did it not take a great risk at Camp David in 2000, which was followed by horrible acts of terror launched by its Palestinian partner? Did Ehud Barak not return empty handed, yet again, after making an improved offer to Arafat during the 2001 Taba Conference as Palestinian terrorists were killing Israelis? Did Israel not take a risk when it withdrew from Gaza in 2005? In 2007 did Abbas not reject the even more generous offers presented by Olmert - offers which amazed even the Americans?

Therefore, it is hard to imagine that Obama, who admitted during his speech that Israel "made credible proposals to the Palestinians at Annapolis (…) withdrew from Gaza and Lebanon, and then faced terror and rockets," believes with all his heart that a peace agreement with the Palestinians is possible in our lifetimes.
------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------
3)The Republican brand problem — and why fixing it won’t be easy

Posted by Chris Cillizza 

Asked to name the single thing they disliked the most about the Republican party, one in five people in a new Gallup poll said the GOP was “inflexible” or “unwilling to compromise.”

That’s bad — but it doesn’t capture the full magnitude of the brand problems that Republicans are currently dealing with. Two other numbers in the Gallup survey do that.

The first is 26 percent — as in one in four Republicans saying the thing they dislike about their own party is that it is too uncompromising. That is at least as high as the number of Democrats (22 percent) who said the same thing and higher than the number of independents (17 percent).

That more than one in four Republicans think their own side is too inflexible speaks not only to the divide between the conservative and establishment wings of the party — nothing shocking there — but also, and this is somewhat new, to the size of the group who thinks the GOP is simply too hard line.

Rock, meet hard place.The second, and more important data point, is that the second most-mentioned critique of the party — 14 percent named it — by self-identified GOPers is that they “don’t stand up for their positions” and “give in too easily.” And, when asked the things they like about their party, the three most-mentioned traits are “better fiscal management/budget cuts/less debt”, “conservative views” and “favor smaller government.”

Republicans want Republicans to compromise. But giving way on the budget and size of government strikes at the party’s raison d’etre. Compromising on those sorts of things — like the party did in the fiscal cliff deal with President Obama in late 2012 — is likely to lose the party more of its adherents than it gains it in converts. And, as any party strategist will tell you, a party without a base isn’t much of a party.

So, what the party compromises on then matters — a lot.  And, that’s why making a deal on immigration may well be the best chance the GOP has to change the perception that they are allergic to deal-making.

Why? Because it’s something of a nothing-burger to their base — 2 percent volunteer the party’s stance on immigration as a top beef they have with the GOP while 1 percent name it as a positive thing for their side — and it could well allow the GOP to court Hispanics if the party can play an active role in putting together a comprehensive immigration reform proposal.

What the numbers from Gallup make clear is that simply making a deal to make a deal won’t help Republicans convince the public — or their party — that the image of the GOP is wrong.  But, picking a high profile place or two — climate change, perhaps? — to cut deals might very well allow Republicans to keep their base behind them while shattering the negative image too many Americans have of them as hardened ideologues on every issue.
----------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------
4)Yes, Let’s Keep Government Out of Marriage

By: Erick Erickson  

Last week at RedState, we spent a lot of time focusing on politics from a faith perspective because it was Holy Week. Throughout the week, many people who support gay marriage lambasted me and others that Christians were just trying to use government to legislate marriage or morality.

But I agree that we should keep the government out of marriage.

Last I checked, George and Martha Washington did not get remarried after 1776 when the United States declared independence from Great Britain. Nor did they do so after 1789, when the constitution was enacted.

In fact, not one of the founding fathers married prior to 1776 remarried the same person after the United States was formed.

Government did not create marriage. The only laws on the books related to marriage are state laws and federal laws that recognize the marriage structure that previously existed before the government established them.

To be sure, over time those marriages evolved. The age of consent and the ability to contract have changed and impacted marriage, but the structure and operation of marriage were still the same.

The most significant changes in the law regarding marriage have been on how to end a marriage, not how to begin a marriage or what constitutes a marriage.

But marriage pre-existed the state and has evolved institutionally over a few thousand years.

What’s happening now is that gay marriage advocates are attempting to use the state to change marriage. When they say Christians are trying to use the state to legislate their version of marriage, they are full of crap. All Christians are doing is defending an institution that already exists from being changed to something it has never been.

It is the gay marriage advocates who want to force, by the power of the state, a pre-existing institution to change. If the state has the power to change the definition of an institution that it did not create, the state can force everyone to do so. It is already happening in this country at the state level.

Marriage may evolve to include gays one day. But the time is not their year. The laws enacted across the country to preserve the status quo are just that — there to keep the state, via the courts or legislature from changing an institution neither the courts nor legislatures of the several states created, but chose to recognize.

Let’s be clear here — you can support gay marriage, but don’t tell me Christians are trying to legislate their version of marriage. The only people trying to legislate, from the bench or otherwise, are gay rights advocates who refuse to let the institution naturally evolve because of their own impatience for the trappings of normalcy in a society that has long viewed them as outside the mainstream.

That the loudest proponents of gay marriage cannot even be honest in what’s going on loudly suggests they are not being honest when they say they’re cool with conscientious objectors to the whole idea. Consider, for example, this blog post from the Cato Institute entitled, “We Support Gay Marriage but Oppose Forcing People to Support It.”

They filed an amicus brief in support of Elane Photography, which was punished in New Mexico for refusing to help a gay wedding. Cato bases its defense on photography being protected by the first amendment. But note this:

Our brief explains that photography is an art form protected by the First Amendment because clients seek out the photographer’s method of staging, posing, lighting, and editing. Photography is thus a form of expression subject to the First Amendment’s protection, unlike many other wedding-related businesses (e.g., caterers, hotels, limousine drivers).

So if you are a Christian caterer, bed and breakfast, etc. too bad. You will be forced to provide services to a gay wedding. You will be made to by the power of the state. That’s where we are headed. If the state has the power to change the definition of an institution it did not create, the state can compel your services to that institution.

So yes, let’s keep the government out of marriage. Its definition will change over time through the natural evolution of all institutions. That evolution may include gay marriage, but it might not.

----------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------

4)

Yes, Let’s Keep Government Out of Marriage

By: Erick Erickson (Diary)  |  April 1st, 2013 at 03:30 AM  |  54

RESIZE:AAA

Last week at RedState, we spent a lot of time focusing on politics from a faith perspective because it was Holy Week. Throughout the week, many people who support gay marriage lambasted me and others that Christians were just trying to use government to legislate marriage or morality.

But I agree that we should keep the government out of marriage.

Last I checked, George and Martha Washington did not get remarried after 1776 when the United States declared independence from Great Britain. Nor did they do so after 1789, when the constitution was enacted.

In fact, not one of the founding fathers married prior to 1776 remarried the same person after the United States was formed.

Government did not create marriage. The only laws on the books related to marriage are state laws and federal laws that recognize the marriage structure that previously existed before the government established them.

To be sure, over time those marriages evolved. The age of consent and the ability to contract have changed and impacted marriage, but the structure and operation of marriage were still the same.

The most significant changes in the law regarding marriage have been on how to end a marriage, not how to begin a marriage or what constitutes a marriage.

But marriage pre-existed the state and has evolved institutionally over a few thousand years.

What’s happening now is that gay marriage advocates are attempting to use the state to change marriage. When they say Christians are trying to use the state to legislate their version of marriage, they are full of crap. All Christians are doing is defending an institution that already exists from being changed to something it has never been.

It is the gay marriage advocates who want to force, by the power of the state, a pre-existing institution to change. If the state has the power to change the definition of an institution that it did not create, the state can force everyone to do so. It is already happening in this country at the state level.

Marriage may evolve to include gays one day. But the time is not there year. The laws enacted across the country to preserve the status quo are just that — there to keep the state, via the courts or legislature from changing an institution neither the courts nor legislatures of the several states created, but chose to recognize.

Let’s be clear here — you can support gay marriage, but don’t tell me Christians are trying to legislate their version of marriage. The only people trying to legislate, from the bench or otherwise, are gay rights advocates who refuse to let the institution naturally evolve because of their own impatience for the trappings of normalcy in a society that has long viewed them as outside the mainstream.

That the loudest proponents of gay marriage cannot even be honest in what’s going on loudly suggests they are not being honest when they say they’re cool with conscientious objectors to the whole idea. Consider, for example, this blog post from the Cato Institute entitled, “We Support Gay Marriage but Oppose Forcing People to Support It.”

They filed an amicus brief in support of Elane Photography, which was punished in New Mexico for refusing to help a gay wedding. Cato bases its defense on photography being protected by the first amendment. But note this:

Our brief explains that photography is an art form protected by the First Amendment because clients seek out the photographer’s method of staging, posing, lighting, and editing. Photography is thus a form of expression subject to the First Amendment’s protection, unlike many other wedding-related businesses (e.g., caterers, hotels, limousine drivers).

So if you are a Christian caterer, bed and breakfast, etc. too bad. You will be forced to provide services to a gay wedding. You will be made to by the power of the state. That’s where we are headed. If the state has the power to change the definition of an institution it did not create, the state can compel your services to that institution.

So yes, let’s keep the government out of marriage. Its definition will change over time through the natural evolution of all institutions. That evolution may include gay marriage, but it might not.

------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------

Proven Ability and Last Name - Negatives!

Evan a bird tires!
 

The Sequester????


Me 'n Leroy .... PRICELESS!

A guy stopped at a local gas station and, after filling his tank, he paid
the bill and bought a soft drink. He stood by his car to drink his cola and
watched a couple of men working along the roadside.

One man would dig a hole two or three feet deep and then move on.
The other man came along behind him and filled in the hole. While one was 
digging a
new hole, the other was 25 feet behind filling in the hole. The men worked
right past the guy with the soft drink and went on down the road.

"I can't stand this," said the man, tossing the can into a trash container
and heading down the road toward the men. "Hold it, hold it," he said to the
men. "Can you tell me what's going on here with all this digging and 
refilling?

"Well, we work for the government and we're just doing our job," one of the
men said.

"But one of you is digging a hole and the other fills it up. You're not
accomplishing anything. Aren't you wasting the taxpayers' money?"

"You don't understand, mister," one of the men said, leaning on his shovel
and wiping his brow. "Normally there are three of us: me, Elmer and Leroy.
I dig the hole, Elmer sticks in the tree, and Leroy here puts the dirt back.
Elmer's job's been cut... so now it's just me 'n Leroy.

---
When John Fund  was in Savannah and stayed at our house he left me his latest book: "Who's Counting.
I have since read it.

It is about voter fraud and he and his co writer, Hans Von Spakovsky, who worked in Holder's Justice (or should I say in-justice)Department expose several instances of voter fraud from Al Franken's theft of his Senate seat, to outright voter theft in Noxubee Mississippi, to Greene County Alabama.

The authors also present the pro and con arguments regarding voter ID, the unwillingness of the current Justice Department to prosecute when voter fraud is alleged by whites because most of the department's senior attorneys in the Civil Right's Division either believe it is pay back time and/or the law do not pertain to white voters.

Those in the military are also victims of a system that disfavors their timely ballots being processed.

The authors have thoroughly researched the cases they present and document them in a way that buttresses the fact that the Obama/Holder Justice Department is one of the most corrupt, and therefore dangerous,  in recent memory.

What the reader will learn is that when it comes to voting irregularities we are often no better than Russia.
American voter fraud is a pernicious trend that, if condoned and permitted to continue and flourish, will rightfully destroy belief in the sanctity of our electoral process.

John's next book, which should be out next year, will highlight a senior Justice Department official.

"Who's Counting" is a documented shocker for those who believe voter fraud is not something we should be concerned about in our country.

---
Another take on Turkey and Israel's renewed relationship. (See 1 below.)

And then we have this historical fact!  (See 1a below.)
---
Worth repeating: "Us old timers can appreciate this. We know what a great generation our parents were part of and what sacrifices they made.

Watch it all the way through, do not delete too soon!

http://www.safeshare.tv/w/UAGOcLSuLX

---

Unbelievable:  "Subject: Gorilla Encounter

Click on link below: Absolutely beautiful. "

---
This was sent to me by a very learned friend and fellow memo reader. (See 2 below.)
---
Yes his last name is Bush and that may make him un-winnable but he is an accomplished and proven  executive, has many correct answers to our problems and would probably make a fine president.

Sad that all these positive  reasons  are against him. We seem to prefer electing the opposite. (See 3 below.)
---
Israel's next potential threat - Tamas instead of Hamas! (See 4 below.)
---
Dick
--------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------
1)Turkey and Israel: interests over grudges

By Smadar Bat Adam - Israel Hayom,  

Turkish media reported this week that Prime Minister Benjamin Netanyahu's apology has paved the way for a massive joint pipeline project carrying natural gas from Israel to Turkey and from there to Europe. There is no overestimating the influence joint economic interests can have on stable relations between countries.

It is said that during a private conversation, Prime Minister David Ben-Gurion once thanked French President Charles de Gaulle for France's help to Israel, attributing it to the strong alliance and friendship between the two countries. To which De Gaulle replied, “France has no friends, only interests.”

Turkey too has interests. Despite Turkish Prime Minister Recep Tayyip Erdoğan's seeming attempts in recent years to turn Israel from a friend to an enemy, especially since the Mavi Marmara incident, it turns out that our common economic interests have been maintained and even gained momentum. It would be safe to say that beneath the outward hostility, a lot of positive energy has been flowing between the two countries.

Energy, as in energy markets, that is. Over six months ago a modest ceremony was held at the Azrieli Center, during which the Edeltech Group Ltd. marked the securing of financing for two electricity cogeneration power plants in Ashdod and Ramat Negev. These stations are expected to produce about 200 megawatts, on top of the 830 megawatts to be produced by the Dorad power plant in Ashkelon, which is in the final stages of construction.

Two additional power plants are in the offing, Solad and Tamar, which will add about 200 megawatts to the market. Together, these power plants would increase Israel's electricity producing ability by about 10 percent.

The senior partner of Edeltech, Ahmet Zorlu, is the owner of Zorlu Holding, the second largest holding company in Turkey. Zorlu of course took part in the ceremony, along with his partners and family members. Israel's success is his gain. Every intelligent person knows that Zorlu, like many others who do business in Israel, invests his money in Israel with the permission of the Turkish government. Zorlu Holding is the company that, along with Edeltech Group Ltd., has pushed for the pipeline exporting gas from Israel to Turkey. If and when it is established, the pipeline could carry gas worth $5 billion to $6 billion per year. Turkey would benefit from the ready availability of gas it lacks at present, as well as earn money from the transport of gas to Europe. Israel would benefit from an efficient, quick and cheap solution compared to the alternative, which involves liquefying gas for export.

The economic advantage is clear, as are the strategic and diplomatic advantages. We should remember that the East Mediterranean Gas Company's agreement to sell gas by pipeline from Egypt to Israel is considered the anchor of our relations with that country. The weakness of the agreement from Israel's point of view is that Egypt has control over the gas valve. The great thing about the Israeli-Turkish pipeline is that both countries have control. Israel has the right to open and close the valve while Turkey controls access to Europe. This is a win-win situation.

When President Barack Obama melted our hearts with his statement “you are not alone,” he repeated De Gaulle's lesson to Ben-Gurion: Countries do not have friends or enemies, they have interests. Obama made the phone call, Netanyahu said what was required, and Erdoğan played hard to get. Thank God common interests prevailed, and the new pipeline will transport an abundance of positive energy.

1a)The Struma: The Boat That Never Made It

By Jennifer Rosenberg

Afraid of becoming victims of the horrors being perpetrated in Eastern Europe, 769 Jews attempted to flee to Palestine on board the Struma. But, instead of finding freedom, they found a world that didn't want to take responsibility for them, a world that cast them out, defenseless, into the raging seas.

Boarding

On December 12, 1941, a Greek boat with a Bulgarian captain (G. T. Gorbatenko) under a Panamanian flag left Constanta, Romania bound for Palestine. The 769 passengers on board the 180-ton Struma had paid an exorbitant price for passage on this boat. They had been told they were to sail on a renovated boat to Palestine, with a short scheduled stop at Istanbul, Turkey to pick up their Palestinian immigration certificates. (Ever since the British enacted the White Paper in 1939, legal entry into Palestine had been extremely limited - the exorbitant fees for passage were supposed to include a legal entry certificate.)

Yet when the 769 Jews arrived to board the ship, they found an old, dilapidated cattle boat. The boat was extremely ill-equipped for this journey - it had only one bathroom for all the passengers and no kitchen. Since the passengers had put everything into this trip to freedom, they had to hope that the journey would be short and count on the immigration certificates to get them into Palestine. Thus, they boarded and sailed on the Struma.

Waiting in Istanbul The trip to Istanbul was difficult because the boat's engine kept breaking down, but they did reach Istanbul safely in three days. Here, the Turks would not allow the passengers to land. Instead, the Struma was anchored offshore in a quarantine section of the port. While attempts were made to repair the engine, the passengers were forced to stay on board - week after week.

It was in Istanbul that the passengers discovered their most serious problem thus far on this trip - there were no immigration certificates awaiting them. It had all been part of a hoax to jack-up the price of the passage. These refugees were attempting (though they had not known it earlier) an illegal entry into Palestine.

The British, who were in control of Palestine, had heard of the Struma's voyage and had requested that the Turkish government prevent the Struma from passing through the Straits. The Turks were adamant that they did not want this group of people on their land.

An effort was made to return the ship to Romania, but the Romanian government would not allow it. While the countries debated, the passengers were living a miserable existence on board.

On Board

Though traveling on the dilapidated boat had perhaps seemed endurable for a few days, living on board for weeks upon weeks began to cause serious physical and mental health problems. There was no fresh water on board and the provisions had long ago been used up. The boat was so small that not all the passengers could stand above deck at once, thus the passengers were forced to take turns on the deck in order to get a respite from the stifling hold.^*

The Arguments

The British did not want to allow the refugees into Palestine because they were afraid that many more such shiploads of refugees would follow. Also, some British government officials used the often cited excuse against refugees and emigrants, that there could be an enemy spy among the refugees.

The Turks were adamant that no refugees were to land in Turkey. The JDC had even offered to create an on land camp for the Struma refugees fully funded by the JDC, but the Turks would not agree.

Because the Struma was not allowed into Palestine, not allowed to stay in Turkey, and not allowed to return to Romania, the boat and its passengers remained anchored and isolated for ten weeks. Though many were sick, just one woman was allowed to disembark and that was because she was in the advanced stages of pregnancy.

The Turkish government then announced that if a decision was not made by February 16, they would send the Struma back into the Black Sea.

For weeks, the British had adamantly denied the entry of all the refugees aboard the Struma, even the children. But as the Turks' deadline neared, the British government acquiesced to allow some of the children to enter Palestine. The British announced that children between the ages of eleven and sixteen on the Struma would be allowed to immigrate.

But there were problems with this. The plan was that the children would disembark, then travel through Turkey to reach Palestine. Unfortunately, the Turks remained stringent on their rule of allowing no refugees onto their land, thus they would not approve this over land route.

In addition to the Turks' refusal to let the children land, Alec Walter George Randall, Counsellow in the British Foreign Office, aptly summarized an additional problem:

Even if we get the Turks to agree I should imagine that the process of selecting the children and taking them from their parents off the Struma would be an extremely distressing one. Who do you propose should undertake it, and has the possibility of the adults refusing to let the children go been considered?^**

In the end, no children were let off the Struma.

Set Adrift

The Turks had set a deadline for February 16. By this date, there was still no decision. The Turks then waited a few more days. But on the night of February 23, 1942, Turkish police boarded theStruma and informed its passengers that they were to be removed from Turkish waters. The passengers begged and pleaded - even put up some resistance - but to no avail.

The Struma and its passengers were towed approximately six miles (ten kilometers) from the coast and left there. The boat still had no working engine (all attempts to repair it had failed). The Strumaalso had no fresh water, food, or fuel.

After just a couple of hours drifting, the boat exploded. Most believe that a Soviet torpedo hit and sank the Struma. The Turks did not send out rescue boats until the next morning - they only picked up one survivor (David Stoliar). All 767 of the other passengers perished.

* Bernard Wasserstein, Britain and the Jews of Europe, 1939-1945 (London: Clarendon Press, 1979) 144.
** Alec Walter George Randall as quoted in Wasserstein, Britain 151.

Bibliography

Ofer, Dalia. "Struma." Encyclopedia of the Holocaust. Ed. Israel Gutman. New York: Macmillan Library Reference USA, 1990.

Wasserstein, Bernard. Britain and the Jews of Europe, 1939-1945. London: Clarendon Press, 1979.

Yahil, Leni. The Holocaust: The Fate of European Jewry. New York: Oxford University Press, 1990.

-------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------

2)Dangerous Times: America will Survive Obama

By James Lewis

Can America survive the age of O? Many conservatives are worried sick.

Some friends invited me to their Passover seder the other night, and for the first time I really paid attention to the meaning of the words. As you know, the seder celebrates the liberation of the Hebrew people -- the Jews -- from oppression and slavery in Egypt around the first millennium BCE. There has long been debate about the accuracy of that history, but skip that for now.

Ask yourself why liberation from slavery has dominated Jewish and later Christian thought for three thousand years? Jesus' Last Supper was a seder ceremony. Black churches used the Egyptian slavery of the children of Israel as a model for their own experiences of slavery and liberation. So have other liberation movements, including the Abolitionists and the American founders.

The Jewish flight from Egyptian slavery was a model of human liberation in the West, until Karl Marx twisted liberty into tyranny. But the struggle between freedom and control freaks is universal. It can be found in the Epic of Gilgamesh and in the family hell created by kids during teenage rebellion. Freedom is a basic yearning of the human spirit, and so is control freakery.

Now we have a president who confuses slavery and liberty, most obviously in the case of the Islamist Spring, which is certainly not an Arab Spring, since in Syria alone nearly 100,000 Arabs have killed each other by now. Some Spring!

To make the results clear beyond question, the Morsi regime in Egypt has just imposed a Sharia constitution that drops the provision against slavery. The reason for that is Islamic law: the Quran describes Mohammed raiding caravans and small towns to steal slaves, including his child bride. The Islamist world still applies slavery to wives and daughters. Thomas Jefferson tried to stop Libyan slave raiding of American merchant ships off the shores of Tripoli, but they never quite got the point.

In Islam it is not freedom but complete submission that is emphasized. Islam is radically different from Judaism and Christianity. It is a desert nomad religion. It reflects that culture.

Domestically, Obama is trying to create a Eurosocialist centralized economy. But in the liberal paradise of Europe the socialist model is failing right in front of our eyes today. Millions of people in Italy and Greece have had their incomes slashed in half and theirtaxes increased. The Euro is failing in all the weaker economies of Europe. The standard demagogic propaganda of Eurosocialism -- calling one's opponents racists and planetary poisoners -- is failing. In a few years the Arab-Iranian oil monopoly will crumble, when shale gas takes over its market share. Countries around the world are frantically searching for shale now that it can be converted into clean hydrocarbons. That will eliminate Islamist OPEC control of oil and allow freedom to emerge again. 

Everywhere the Arab Spring has sprung, Islamist tyranny has replaced relative freedom -- for women most of all. Turkey used to be a modern country until the Islamofascists took over. Egypt used to be relatively tolerant, and kept the 30-year peace treaty with Israel, until Obama told Mubarak to resign. Wherever the Muslim world was poised between modernism and tradition, now the reactionary patriarchs are in control of hundreds of millions of people. Behind a solid wall of media censorship, women are being abused, intimidated, and beaten, with the official approval of imams and mullahs. Read the books of Ayaan Hirsi Ali if you have any doubts about that. Our feminists are playing deaf, but they know, they know. Under Obama the feminist movement has colluded in the enslavement of Muslim women in the "Arab Spring." (Just consider Naomi Wolf's new job with Al Jazeera.)

Pre-Obama, there were genuine movements towards modernity in the Muslim world, beginning with Turkey in 1922. Post-Obama, half a billion women are likely to be openly abused if they venture outside of the house without a male escort, much more vulnerable to blame for being sexually abused by the "justice" of Shariah law, and much more oppressed by the last nasty patriarchy in the world. Thank you, Liberator Obama.

Thomas Jefferson and Abe Lincoln would never, ever have gone along with the renewed fascist control of the Muslim world.

At the UN, 57 Muslim member regimes routinely smear and slander Israel and America, with European and American acquiescence. Brain-locked liberals around the world think this is all fine, and Obama the Messiah is beyond criticism.

Obama is all in favor of the Islamist Spring, because, whether he is Muslim or not, he is an Islamist sympathizer. There is no reasonable doubt anymore.

This is the worst news about an American president since the rise of Stalin, who also penetrated the U.S. with his agents.

My question is whether it will spell an end to the America we have known.

I think America will survive and ultimately win.

The reason is that control freaks are always self-deluded. Freedom is a yearning of the human spirit in America, but it is not limited to America.

No control freak in the world can really run a giant national economy, much less the world as a whole. People have tried to do such things for thousands of years. In general, centralized control fails, just as the Soviet command economy failed. 

What about ObamaCare? Nationalized medicine will elect a lot of Democrats. Ordinary people will learn to get around the inevitable medical rationing, the way they do in Europe. We will all become Italians. Medical vacations abroad will offer an increasingly attractive alternative to American socialized medicine. Private medical care is always being tried in Europe, and some of it works very well. Now it will become global, with private medicine competing with nationalized bureaucracy. Mexico is already becoming a medical travel destination, with international approval for some of its medical centers.

Even in the face of Obamanism, the high-tech revolution is increasingly hard to control. Lenin placed all his technological control bets on electrification of the Soviet Union. When a new industrial revolution commenced with the appearance of cheap computers, the Soviets could never keep up.

When shale technology (invented in America) begins to work in Poland, the Eastern Med, China, and Ireland, the Greens will suddenly decide that natural gas is good for us. Their favorite control whip won't work anymore.

 The biotech revolution is exploding, along with space travel, web talk, and a hundred other new and hard-to-control inventions.

Even today the stock market is rising, a leading indicator of growth. The market is already discounting the expected effects of ObamaCare.

Will it work? Not forever. But it will continue the long, long struggle between control freaks and regular people. Just think Soda Jerk Bloomberg in New York, who has now decided to control restaurant portion sizes in the city. Will that work? Of course not.

So -- will American freedom survive Obama?

I think so, yes. But the country will look very different when the uproar dies down.

Conservatives should think globally, and mobilize the forces of freedom around the world. They exist. Every time an impoverished African buys a cellphone the global free market expands. We must find freedom-loving peoples, make strong alliances, and resist the control freaks, who also exist around the world.

The Cold War was won by a Western alliance that finally won the sympathies of regular people in the Soviet Empire. The Evil Empire crumbled from within. All it took was a unified front by the West combined with its own internal protest movement.

The Long Jihad war can be won the same way. With instant globalization there is no other way. This is an ideological war, and free peoples have won such struggles before.

As for American conservatives, we should heed Winston Churchill, who saw very bad times indeed:

"Never give in -- never, never, never, never, in nothing great or small, large or petty, never give in except to convictions of honour and good sense. Never yield to force; never yield to the apparently overwhelming might of the enemy."

------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------

------------

3) Jeb Bush: Entitlement System Will Collapse If We Don’t Act Now

By Jim Meyers and John Bachm

Former Florida Gov. Jeb Bush has written the cover story for the April edition of Newsmax magazine, offering an optimistic view of America’s future — and straight talk about its problems — with the resounding message: “Growth is the answer” to our nagging economic woes.

And the leading Republican sat down with Newsmax for a wide-ranging interview elaborating on a number of topics he discusses in his magazine feature, arguing that America can be great again if we open up the doors to economic opportunity.

Bush, who served two terms as Florida’s governor, has earned a nationwide reputation for reform proposals in the fields of education and immigration. He is founder and chairman of the Foundation for Excellence in Education, author of the new book “The Immigration Wars: Forging an American Solution” — co-written with constitutional law expert Clint Bolick — and is considered a strong contender for the GOP presidential nomination in 2016.

Bush’s Newsmax magazine piece stresses the need for economic growth to deal with the nation’s debt and deficit problems.

In his exclusive interview with Newsmax TV, he was asked if growth alone will solve those problems.

“If we grew at 2 percent more per year than what’s projected, which is anywhere from 1 to 1.5 percent per year in real terms, we would create a Germany in terms of incremental economic output in the 10th year,” he says. “And that Germany would be taxed at the current rate at least to the tune of about $1 trillion.

“There is no tax plan that could come close to [that].

“The president, almost every time he has a chance to speak, talks about the need for high growth, but his policies do the exact opposite. His policies have created the most tepid recovery in modern American history.

“The dual effect of high growth creating higher income that’s taxed by government at all levels, combined with lessening demands placed on government that occurs during economic prosperity, is a worthy objective.

“Right now we have this discussion of austerity versus government spending, when in fact what we ought to be doing is [determining] how we can invest in the private sector, creating investment opportunities and job creating opportunities that create the kind of growth that lessens government’s involvement in all this. That’s what’s missing and the president has a duty to outline specific proposals that will create economic growth. Up until now I don’t think he’s done it.”

Bush suggests that Republicans could be talking too much about the debt and deficit instead of growth.

“It’s a principled position to say that we have to live within our means, and over time you can do that and we should do that. But the fastest way to get to that is in combination with high growth. It’s also a winning political message to embrace the dynamic nature of our economy. It’s much better than just saying, ‘world coming to end. Memo to follow.’

“We should be much more hopeful and optimistic about the future of our country. If you just see the trends in the life science area and telecommunications and information technology, we’re living in the most wondrous time ever in human history, and globally the United States is a leader. We should be excited about the future and creating strategies to ensure that we create long-term, sustained economic growth.”

Reform should start with energy, immigration policy, regulations, the tax code, and education, Bush states.

“They’re the set of policy objectives that we should embrace, not all of which are ideological either. The sad thing is the dysfunction in Washington right now limits the ability even when there’s enough consensus to move forward.”

During the presidential campaign, Mitt Romney was criticized for not putting specifics on the table, particularly regarding entitlement cuts and taxes. But Bush believes lawmakers and candidates can get specific without getting bogged down in minutiae.

“First of all you have to inform. You can’t just assume that everybody has the facts,” he maintains.

“Most of the cuts we’re talking about are cuts in the growth of spending, not actual cuts, and there are people in Washington that have [offered] specific proposals, Paul Ryan being perhaps the most obvious one. He was Mitt Romney’s running mate and a courageous and inspired choice, and they did defend those so-called cuts for a while, then they kind of reverted back to trying to make the election about the president, exclusively a referendum on his job performance.

“. . . The lesson of 2012 is be bold, be specific, persuade, don’t follow polls, don’t be driven by what people’s feelings are here and now because those opinions can shift if you make a compelling case.”

But Bush does agree that the entitlement system is “unsustainable” and “no one argues that we can keep doing what we’re doing. So either we have it collapse or we change it to protect it.”

Among the changes he suggests are “raising the retirement age to reflect the life expectancy increase that’s been dramatic, means testing some of the entitlement programs over time. We have to reform healthcare underneath the entitlement system as well so that the cost curve is dealt with, which means we should move toward catastrophic coverage as the form of insurance and reward healthy lifestyle decisions and focus on prevention to lessen cost by improving healthcare outcomes.”

Bush favors eliminating tax loopholes and reducing taxes to the lowest possible rates

“If you eliminate as many of the deductions as possible, you would create a boom of economic activity. You would lessen compliance costs. Right now, whether it’s a small business guy or a private person, people pay an arm and a leg for just the simple compliance costs. Now, you have to pay a lot of money because our code’s way too complex. My personal belief is the simpler the code, the better it is.”

Asked if he would be willing to give up the mortgage interest deduction if tax rates are lowered, Bush responds: “I would. To me, the better way of doing this would be to say, all of the tax code expires” and must be rebuilt from the ground up.

“That would be a better approach because people could see the benefits of a simpler code and the empowering nature of that. People could keep more of their own money, make decisions for themselves, and not effectively get in line to get their version of some tax expenditure or tax credit. [We would] lower the rates significantly and create a burst of economic activity for our country.”

In his Newsmax magazine article, Bush never once mentions President Obama or the Democrats.

He tells Newsmax TV that other Republicans could be too focused on talking about what the opposition is doing instead of what they have to offer.

“We’ve gotten a little far removed from where we once were not that long ago, which is the party of reform, the party of new thinking, the party of ideas, the party that embraces the future.

“There’s a reason why in my recent speeches and the Newsmax article that I didn’t mention the president. The president’s record on economic policy is a failed one, but we’re not going to win the day unless we have a compelling alternative and that’s where the focus needs to be.

“In Washington, particularly, the loyal opposition has a job to be the opposition. But you can’t stop there. You have to oppose in a principled, civil way but you also have to offer alternatives.

“There are a lot of reasons why the election turned out the way it did. All I know for sure is that I wish Mitt Romney was president right now because he’d be a practical person trying to forge common-sense solutions to these big, dysfunctional challenges we face.”

On education, Bush writes in his magazine cover story about the need to increase the choices that are available to parents and students.

To do that, he tells Newsmax we need to “change laws. We have 50 states that are the governance model or the catalyst for how governance operates. We have 13,000 government-run monopolies, heavily unionized. And in that kind of setting, it should not be a surprise that the economic interests of the adults is really a dominant part of education life in America today.

“We have a third of our kids that don’t make it through the system, even though we spend more per student than any country in the world. And a lot of students could be doing college-level work by the time they’ve graduated from high school but in effect they’re held back because we’ve got this adult-centered homogenized learning model.

“What the Foundation for Excellence in Education is trying to do is to help policymakers in our 50 states open up their laws to allow more innovation to take place.

“We’re putting too much emphasis on the college experience. The country’s moving towards fewer standards that require critical thinking skills both for going to college as well as for being able to get a job in some technical skill or career-oriented avocation. So the skills necessary for both paths need to be higher.”

Bush in his magazine article cites the need to strengthen family values as a way to boost our economy.

“It’s really important to recognize that family life in America has changed pretty dramatically,” he tells Newsmax TV.

“For the first time in American history there are fewer married women than unmarried women in the age cohort that’s measured. We’ve had dramatic increases in out-of-wedlock birth rates. Every study that I’ve seen suggests that if a young woman doesn’t have a child before she’s married and she can defer marriage [until] she’s 25 and can graduate from high school, the chance of her living in poverty is dramatically reduced, and similarly with men.

“If we get that right then we can have a chance of creating economy prosperity over the long haul. If we don’t get it right, it really does change who we are as a nation and it creates enormous strains.“
Bush also says there is an “inverse relationship” between liberty and the size and scope of government, and agrees with Sen. Rand Paul that the Republican Party needs to embrace more libertarian ideas.

He also talks at length about the immigration policies espoused in his controversial new book.

And he ends his Newsmax interview on an optimistic note, stating that “I just have total confidence that a dynamic world will yield benefits that we can’t even imagine.

“If you believe like I do that the world is abundant with possibilities, then we need to make sure we build capacity so that everybody is successful or can be successful in the pursuit of their dreams — not the dreams of someone from government, but their own dreams.

-------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------

4)

Steep-Trajectory munitions expected to attack Israel from West Bank

...in my view, the most significant aspect, which we have not yet experienced out of the West Bank, will involve the capability to launch steep-trajectory munitions at Israeli towns in the Judea and Samaria sector as well as at Israeli cities in the inner plain, the coastal plane and northern Samaria. Tamas (Steep-Trajectory) instead of Hamas During the anticipated confrontation in the West Bank, Palestinian steep-trajectory fire will replace suicide bombers as the preferred method for attacking Israel's homefront. Col. (Res.) Atai Shelach addresses the challenges facing the IDF in this particular theater Atai Shelach IsraelDefense 30/3/2013 Tamas (Steep-Trajectory) instead of Hamas According to recent indications, the next 'round' of the combat between Israel and Palestinian terrorists will take place on the West Bank – it’s just a matter of time. All of the signs have been surfacing in the recent months: a continuous stagnation as far as political negotiations are concerned; the acceptance of the Palestinian Authority as an observer state in the UN; the perceived 'weakness' of PA Chairman Mahmoud Abbas (Abu Mazen); the previous round of combat in the Gaza Strip (Operation Pillar of Defense); and the power struggles within the PA, along with the repeated attempts to achieve a reconciliation between Hamas and the PLO. In recent months, incidents involving stone throwing have become more frequent in the various sectors. The "Arab Spring" (or "Arab Winter", as some Israeli politicians refer to it) sweeping the Middle East has also 'charged' the streets of the West Bank towns with renewed negative energy. The last 'round' of the confrontation, which broke out in the year 2000, progressed from street demonstrations to violent demonstrations with firearms present, shooting and other attacks along the routes and insertion of suicide bombers into Israel's homefrontl. The culmination of that confrontation round occurred in March 2002, with the suicide attack at the Park Hotel in Netanya, followed by the IDF's launch of operation Defensive Wall. After that operation, two significant processes shaped the reality that has existed until recently. The first process involved the construction of the 'seam line' fence system, which made the insertion of terrorists into Israel’s homefront much more difficult and allowed the IDF to invest its efforts and resources in a manner that improved their operational effectiveness. The other process, executed with determination and Sisyphean tenacity, was the 'lawn mowing' project (a term coined by the commander of the Judea and Samaria sector at the time, Maj. Gen. Gadi Eizenkot). Over a period of more than four years, hundreds and possibly thousands of Hamas and PLO operatives were arrested, thereby preventing terrorism from raising its ugly head. It should be noted that other processes helped keep the flames in check on the West Bank as far as the over-all confrontation was concerned. These processes included such relief measures as allowing commercial activity and opening the routes between West Bank towns, known as 'the lifting of the barriers'. What Awaits Around the Corner? As in many other instances in life, there is no place for a vacuum, and where the wagon has been bogged down (in the absence of political negotiations or any other moves), the market forces begin to emerge: the streets are no longer calm, various processes are under way and the ground begins to rustle. Judging by the present state of affairs, the seeds of the next round are already here and old confrontation patterns are re-emerging daily. So, what awaits us in the next 'round' and what should we prepare for? Firstly, what once was will never be again. In this writer's estimate, this time around, the streets will be much more determined and operate with more 'civil' symptoms but much more actively, as learned from the 'brethren' in Egypt, Syria, Iraq and Libya. The demonstrations may include firearms as well, but in the era of Facebook and the other social networks, it is easy to incite and inflame, and much easier to transmit the images of the struggle to the entire world, with particular emphasis on the Muslim world. At the same time as the processes described above, armed conflicts will take place just as in the past. However, in my view, the most significant aspect, which we have not yet experienced out of the West Bank, will involve the capability to launch steep-trajectory munitions at Israeli towns in the Judea and Samaria sector as well as at Israeli cities in the inner plain, the coastal plane and northern Samaria. As I stated, life in general and terrorism in particular have no place for a vacuum, and where one succeeds the other will promptly emulate him. The terrorist organizations on the West Bank have had sufficient time to prepare and learn from their 'brethren' in the Gaza Strip and Lebanon how to deploy professionally for the launching of steep trajectory munitions into Israel. Whereas the 'seam line' is up and even improving, the terrorist organizations will be hard put to bring suicide bombers into Israel’s homefront. Yet even so, they may eventually succeed. In this writer's estimate, the next round of the confrontation will include intensive and extended civilian demonstrations in all West Bank towns, including marches and demonstrations focusing on the struggle against the border fence system and the 'seam line', along with shooting attacks and intrusions into towns, as we experienced in the past. The primary challenge, however, will be dealing with the steep trajectory fire, which would mean (in the absence of any other alternative), entering the towns of the West Bank once again, in order to once again destroy the infrastructure supporting this fire, along with the explosives laboratories we remember so well from the previous round. A New ‘Toolbox’ The IDF, Border Police and Israel Police, who regularly play major and dominant roles in this old-new conflict, will be required to adopt a new 'toolbox' for the new confrontation. The first task will be to understand and distinguish how to cope with the civilian demonstrations and how to win, from the very first moment, in the battle of perceptions. In my view, this is the first commandment. Additionally, an incremental set of tools should be developed in order to deal with massive demonstrations against the 'seam line'. The Palestinians regard the struggle against the fence as their 'flagship project' whose degree of legitimacy is very high. We should bear in mind how surprised we were by the massive marches from Lebanon and Syria, and how long it took us to redeploy our forces and respond properly and intelligently, while losing significant legitimacy and points in the struggle for local and international perception. As I stated previously, the crown jewel of the next 'round' will involve the preparations for dealing with the steep trajectory munitions infrastructure on the West Bank and the consolidation of a comprehensive concept for all of the aspects of this problem. In many ways, we would not be able to conduct the struggle against the steep trajectory munitions on the West Bank as we conducted it opposite Gaza and Lebanon, owing to operational and humanitarian limitations which would necessitate operational activities on different levels. In other words - land operations rather than air strikes and more 'surgical' operations on the ground, rather than massive, continuous stand-off fire. At the same time, the intelligence gathering resources of the various intelligence agencies would have to be deployed in force. In this round, “tamas” (steep-trajectory fire) will replace Hamas as the preferred method for attacking the Israeli homefront.