Filed under: Democrat Corruption, Foreign Policy, Humor, Intelligence, Iran, Law, Media Bias, National Security, Terrorism, The United States | Tags: Andrew Klavan on the Culture, Calling a Threat a Threat, Responding to Progressive Outrage
Former Governor Mike Huckabee was recently discussing President Obama’s Iran Deal with Breitbart editor-in-chief Alexander Marlow. Mr. Huckabee said “This president’s foreign policy is the most feckless in American history. It is so naive that he would trust the Iranians. By doing so, he will take the Israelis and march them to the door of the ovens.”
When the corrupt media considered this it instantly became clear that every Republican will be required to respond to it. When a Democrat, like Hillary Clinton, is going to appear on “Meet the Press”, a venue where she might say something untoward, the Media feeds her the questions to be asked in advance, so she can prepare —as has been revealed by the latest dump of Hillary’s emails.
Andrew Klavan, a Republican, presumed that he would be asked for his response to the Huckabee remark: Here it is.
I am absolutely shocked that Governor Huckabee would make reference to the Holocaust when discussing a deal that endangers the lives of six million Jews. Why, it’s so absurd — Jon Stewart ought to make one of his funny faces about it. God, I love those. Are they hilarious or what? Just because the president wants to virtually guarantee nuclear weapons to a regime dedicated to Israel’s destruction, that’s no reason to go around getting all Holocausty about it. It’s a completely ridiculous comparison. For one thing, these are totally different Jews we’re talking about killing here. And for another thing, Adolf Hitler was evil. President Obama is just narcissistic and morally obtuse. So when these Jews die, it’ll be different. Okay, not for them, but I mean for us, later, when we make excuses about it. Governor Huckabee should apologize at once. Especially for those music segments on his old Fox show.
That strikes me as a pretty fair response to Progressive outrage.
Filed under: Africa, Capitalism, Developing Nations, Economy, Education, Foreign Policy, Freedom, History, Media Bias | Tags: Free Market Capitalism, Societal Transformation, Understanding What's Important
Leon Louw is an author, policy analyst, and executive director of the South Africa-based think tank: The Free Market Foundation. “Thank goodness people are ‘exploiting ” Africa by buying things from it, by investing in it, by employing people in it,” he said. “The worst thing that would happen is if people decide to stop exploiting Africa.”
The statement might sound provocative, but Louw is responding to a a pair of critiques he hears often: That economic development is akin to exploitation and that the gap between rich and poor is growing dangerously large. But Louw says that the focus on economic inequality is a distraction from a more important metric.
“The world is experiencing the most amazing accomplishment of humanity: The virtual elimination of poverty,” says Louw. “It’s strange that as that happens, we are talking about it as if there is more of it.”
Another illustration of “One of the Most Remarkable Achievements in Human History.”Some good news to be celebrated. The Decliners are sure that there is more poverty, more unfairness, more decline. About 9 minutes long. It is getting really hard to get a straight, true look at the state of the world. Those things which are hard and bad are ignored, misunderstood, and the dangers made light of. And the good things? We don’t even know they are happening. It would be helpful if there was way less talk about the supposed gap between the rich and the poor, and a lot more appreciation for free market enterprise that moves people out of poverty.
Filed under: Freedom, History, Media Bias, The United States | Tags: History, slavery, Stars and Bars, Symbols?
After the dreadful racist murders of nine black members of Emmanuel African Methodist Episcopal Church in Charleston, South Carolina, some member of the media called attention to the Confederate battle flag on the South Carolina Capitol grounds, and the media was off and running. Unable to adequately express their dismay, which I assume — they went for the flag.
The flag did not fly over the capitol, but over the Confederate memorial on the Capitol grounds. The conversation quickly moved from the nine murdered church members to the flag as a ‘symbol of racism.’ Governor Nikki Haley promptly said they would take down the flag to end any offense from its presence. It had been placed over the Confederate memorial by a Democrat governor and a Democrat legislature at the time of the Civil War Centennial and would take a 2/3 vote of the legislature to remove.
That wasn’t enough for some members of the media, who began advocating for the removal of Confederate flags everywhere. Retailers said they would no longer sell the flag. Then they went for the statues of Confederate heroes. Monuments were defaced, names of streets and towns named after Confederate heroes should be changed, and some nitwit from CNN even suggested that the Jefferson Memorial in Washington D.C. should be torn down because Jefferson owned slaves. Congratulations! You have managed to match the tactics of ISIS and the Taliban.
The Civil War is over. The South lost and surrendered unconditionally. History is a record of the past, things that actually happened. The Civil War, (The War Between the States), was a dreadful war, the most deadly ( 620,000 dead) in our history. It was a war over the Union and the South’s right to secede. It was a war over the institution of slavery — but to the South it was a war over their entire economy which depended on producing cotton for English textile mills. Sixty percent of American exports at the time were cotton for the mills of Britain — and some 440,000 workers in Britain were employed in the textile industry.
Slavery was a great evil, but it was the norm all over the world, and most people just accepted it as the way things were. The British killed the slave trade between Africa and the new world, and we followed suit. It is estimated that about 88 percent of the transatlantic slave trade went to the sugar islands and South America, and only about 12 percent came to America (per Wikipedia) Am I apologizing for slavery? Certainly not. It has taken a long time to get over the Civil War, a long time for the Southern economy to recover. and a long time for blacks to become full and valued participants in every segment of society. It’s all just a lot more complicated than those who are squawking about the symbolic racism inherent in any display of the Stars and Bars. Read some history. Please!
Filed under: Democrat Corruption, Foreign Policy, History, Iran, Islam, Israel, Media Bias, Middle East, National Security, Politics, Progressivism, The United States | Tags: Obama's Fantasies, Obama's Framework Deal, The Persian Deal
The New York Times headline claimed “Iran Agrees to Detailed Nuclear Outline. The Washington Post followed up with: “Iran agrees to nuclear restrictions in framework deal with world powers.” All hogwash. The “historic agreement” that President Obama is trying desperately to sell is pure fantasy. There has been no agreement on any of the fundamental issues that have led to international concern about Iran’s highly secret nuclear activities and have led to 13 years of diplomatic thrusts and talks and six mandatory resolutions by the United Nations Security Council.
What we have is a bunch of contradictory statements by the assorted participants in the latest round of talks in Switzerland and an ignored deadline. Everybody is trying to make positive statements that spin things in a desirable manner without exceeding the boundaries of reality. So there was a 291 word joint statement in English by Iranian Foreign Minister Muhammad Javad Zarif and the EU foreign policy leader Federica Mogherini who led the so-called P5+1 group of nations including the US in the negotiations.
Then there was the official Iranian text in 512 Persian words, and the text from US Secretary of State John Kerry who has put out a 1,318 word document which acts as if all is a done deal. The three different documents not only do not agree, they are frankly contradictory. The Mogherini and French texts are vague and not even good spin.
The Persian text carefully avoids any words that might in any way give the impression that anything has been agreed by the Iranian side or that the Islamic republic has offered any concessions whatsoever. The Iranian text is labelled as a press statement only. It opens insisting that it has no “legal aspect” and in intended only as a “guideline for drafting future accords.” Last April they were caught cheating on the amount of oil they were allowed to export under the relaxed sanctions.
The American text pretends to spell out “parameters for a Joint Comprehensive Plan of Action” and claims that key points have been “decided” — and what remains to be done is to work out the “implementation details.” The U.S.version claims that Iran has agreed to certain restraints for example reducing the number of centrifuges from 19,000 to 6,500.
The Iranian text, however, says that Iran “shall be able to …” or “qader khahad boud” in Farsi to do such a thing. The same is true about enrichment in Fordow. The Americans say Iran has agreed to stop enrichment there for 15 years. The Iranian text, however, refers to this as something that Iran “will be able to do,” if it so wished. Sometimes the two texts are diametrically opposed.
The American statement claims that Iran has agreed not to use advanced centrifuges, each of which could do the work of 10 old ones. The Iranian text, however, insists that “on the basis of solutions found, work on advanced centrifuges shall continue on the basis of a 10-year plan.”
The American text claims that Iran has agreed to dismantle the core of the heavy water plutonium plant in Arak. The Iranian text says the opposite. The plant shall remain and be updated and modernized.
The American text talks of “sanctions relief” while Iran claims that the sanctions would be “immediately terminated.” Which is it? This is not a small matter. Remember that Obama is a fierce competitor and determined to build a legacy, and get his way.
In his Rose Garden statement, Obama said:
Over a year ago, we took the first step towards today’s framework with a deal to stop the progress of Iran’s nuclear program and roll it back in key areas. And recall that at the time, skeptics argued that Iran would cheat, and that we could not verify their compliance and the interim agreement would fail. Instead, it has succeeded exactly as intended. Iran has met all of its obligations. It eliminated its stockpile of dangerous nuclear material. Inspections of Iran’s program increased. And we continued negotiations to see if we could achieve a more comprehensive deal.
Today, after many months of tough, principled diplomacy, we have achieved the framework for that deal. And it is a good deal, a deal that meets our core objectives. This framework would cut off every pathway that Iran could take to develop a nuclear weapon. Iran will face strict limitations on its program, and Iran has also agreed to the most robust and intrusive inspections and transparency regime ever negotiated for any nuclear program in history. So this deal is not based on trust, it’s based on unprecedented verification.
According to the Persians, they have agreed to no such thing. Iran has said clearly that Obama is lying. Iran has cheated on every single restriction ever placed on them. There have been 20 years of nuclear deal-breaking. In 2003, after Iran came clean, inspectors kept finding new and undeclared sites within Iran. In December they were caught shopping for components for its heavy-water reactor which can produce weapons-grade plutonium.
Iran says plainly that they will not shut down a single facility, will not dismantle a single centrifuge, and will not ship it’s stockpile of enriched uranium out of the country. The UN inspections people say they really don’t know just what the Iranians have, and won’t know without being able to do surprise inspections.
But Obama wants you to know that the deal he has not made is a good one. He claimed that the only alternative to his deal was another ground war in the Middle East. Yet anyone who has been paying the slightest attention could come up with several alternatives. Obama is regarded as completely weak. The Arab nations have joined together with Israel to protest the deal he seems so determined on. He says “this is our best bet by far to make sure Iran doesn’t get a nuclear weapon.” But he also says that ” Iran wants to join the community of nations” just at the moment that they are sponsoring genocide in Syria. He seems to think the Iranian people want to be part of that community, without any understanding that Iran is a dictatorial theocracy, and if the people dared to speak out, which they don’t, they would swiftly be executed.
Willful ignorance, and a frightening fantasy. When they shriek “Death to America” and “Death to Israel” — they actually mean it.
Filed under: Domestic Policy, Environment, Freedom, Media Bias, News of the Weird, Politics, The United States | Tags: Campaign 2016, Scott Walker, The Silly Season
Another small addition to the idea that we may have way too many aspiring newsmen. It is the first week of April, and we have one announced candidate for the office of President of the United States. Yet the news daily is filled with commentary on the presidential campaign. Most viable potential candidates have already had attacks of one sort or another as reporters strive to be the first one to find a real flaw to knock someone out of the race.
April 1, from The New York Times (not an April Fools Joke): “Scott Walker, Allergic to Dogs, May Run Against Political History:”
The attention to Mr. Walker’s likely candidacy for the Republican presidential nomination has focused on weighty matters such as his battles with the left, faltering forays into foreign policy and conservative stances on social issues including abortion and gun rights. But little notice has been given to an area in which he faces a different sort of constitutional challenge: overcoming his aversion to man’s best friend.
Jeb Bush can lament how he lost a Labrador (named for his brother Marvin) to cancer. Marco Rubio has a Shih Tzu, with a name like a gift from heaven: Manna. Ted Cruz goes one better: His rescue mutt is called Snowflake. (“Dear Jesus, please, please, PLEASE bring us a puppy,” his daughters prayed, according to Mr. Cruz’s Facebook page.) And if Mr. Walker makes it to November, he could face Hillary Rodham Clinton and her toy poodle, Tally.
Mr. Walker, who gives a gloomy stump speech filled with “worry,” perhaps could use a four-legged image softener of his own. But he is allergic to dog dander, an aide confirmed.
Well, says the Times, in that he’s running against the long sweep of American political history. If there was a handbook for candidates, “must love dogs” would be right up front.
Filed under: Democrat Corruption, Foreign Policy, Freedom, Iran, Islam, Media Bias, Middle East, National Security, Politics, Progressivism, The Constitution, The United States
Reported: Obama ordered Secretary Kerry to continue talking in Lausanne even though deadline had passed.
LAUSANNE, Switzerland — (Washington Post) “Negotiators from Iran and major world powers reached agreement Thursday on a framework for a final agreement to curb Tehran’s nuclear program in exchange for relief from international sanctions an accord that President Obama hailed as a “good deal” that would make the world a safer place.”
Obama appeared in the Rose Garden to say that the U.S. and its partners “reached a historic understanding with Iran which if fully implemented, will prevent it from obtaining a nuclear weapon.”
Poor Obama, He is so desperate for “a deal” that he has turned over everything the Iranians could possibly want, in return for some vague promises that will be meaningless. Close observers have said that he expects this ‘accomplishment’ to equal Nixon’s opening up China. Instead he may have signed America’s death warrant, and Israel’s.
America is an open society, we hang most of our secrets out on a clothesline for all the world to see — and hackers get a good percentage of the rest. Hardening off our electric grid? EMP attacks? Just yesterday some Russian expert suggested that the best way to end America would be to drop a nuclear bomb on Yellowstone. Not defeat — destroy. When is the last time that The United States of America ever suggested destroying another country?
Obama’s speech in the Rose Garden was so full of straw men that it was embarrassing. He even claimed the authority of a push poll yesterday that asked such a mushy-soft question that both Hitler and Mother Teresa would have signed on. UN Officials have said that Iran is already blocking their efforts to track what is going on in their nuclear program. We not only don’t know how advanced their program is, we don’t know for sure how many facilities they have.
Thomas Sowell wrote today:
The Soviet Union was never suicidal, so the fact that we could annihilate their cities if they attacked ours was a sufficient deterrent to a nuclear attack from them. But will that deter fanatics with an apocalyptic vision? Should we bet the lives of millions of Americans on our ability to deter nuclear war with Iran?
It is now nearly 70 years since nuclear bombs were used in war. Long periods of safety in that respect have apparently led many to feel as if the danger is not real. But the dangers are even greater now and the nuclear bombs more devastating.
Clearing the way for Iran to get nuclear bombs may — probably will — be the most catastrophic decision in human history. And it can certainly change human history, irrevocably, for the worse.
The Iraqi Prime Minister said “We will continue enriching. We won’t close facilities and all sanctions will be terminated.” Obama seems to believe that they are just developing nuclear energy for peaceful domestic purposes. If so, why the intercontinental ballistic missiles? And why, when they are a major oil-producing country, do they need nuclear energy? We don’t even know how close or far their development of a bomb is — Obama is claiming 10 years, too far away to be blamed on him, but other sources say as little as 45 days.
We had a powerful restraint in place. Iran supposedly requires a $130 per barrel price for oil to break even, and the price has dropped below $50. Obama compared himself to Richard Nixon and to John Kennedy negotiating nuclear deals with the Soviet Union, but both of them submitted their agreements to Congress for approval.