Generally speaking, we communicate through language - through words. We express our ideas through words. We think with words. Therefore, the ability to control language can affect how people communicate, and how they think. As I have commented previously, the left has done an outstanding job of controlling and changing the language.
We know "abortion" is "a woman's right to choose." "Gay marriage" became "marriage equality." Phrased as such, only bigots and haters could be opposed to women controlling their bodies, or gays getting married, right? The latest development comes from Tennessee.
Apparently, the Tennessee Administrative Office of the Courts decided to change their court forms, replacing the words "mother" and "father" with "parent 1" and "parent 2." For those of you new to this blog, I would encourage you to go back and read my earlier post of July 20, 2014 entitled "My Ex-Wife." When the words "husband" and "wife" were removed from the California codes, I suggested that "mother" and "father" would be next. Both are based on sex/gender. But we know from the left that those concepts no longer exist.
In that earlier post I had suggested use of the terms "parent unit 1" and "parent unit 2." The State of Tennessee mostly agreed, although they removed the word "unit." After some backlash from actual moms and dads, who resented being called parent 1 or parent 2, the State relented and has gone back to using the old forms - for now. But I assure you that change is coming. After all, the US State Department already removed the words "mother" and "father" from passport applications. So all you moms and dads, enjoy it while you still can.
California tends to lead the nation in left wing crazy ideas. The latest is a bill that removed the word "alien" from the California Labor Code. California already provides driver's licenses to illegal aliens - I mean "California citizens". And, of course, those "citizens" also get the advantage of paying in-state tuition at California colleges and universities. And let's not forget healthcare. You would find it difficult to even locate the use of the expression "illegal alien" in any mainstream news outlet. Control the language - control how people think.
I think the 8/11/15 edition of the Los Angeles Times actually got it right. Said the Times: "The various benefits, rights and protections add up to something experts liken to a kind of California citizenship." Just how long do you think it will be until these "California citizens" are given the right to vote and hold elective office. To deny those rights would be discriminatory, would it not? After all, they are people too. Why should the happenstance of birth determine what rights and privileges we enjoy?
Whether you agree with that last proposition or not is of little import. After all, given Democrat control of California, we will be there soon enough.
Sunday, August 23, 2015
Sunday, August 9, 2015
What Obama's Iran Deal Speech Tells Us...About Obama
On August 5, Obama spoke at American University, giving a speech encouraging support for his Iran nuclear deal. It is worthwhile to take a look at some of his comments - not for what he tells us about the deal, but for what it tells us about Obama.
After discussing the threat of war President Kennedy faced with the USSR, Obama said: "But the young President offered a different vision...with Kennedy at the helm, the Cuban Missile Crisis was resolved peacefully." After Kennedy was told that the Russians were moving nuclear missiles to Cuba, he ultimately ordered a naval blockade of Cuba. Had Russian ships breached the blockade, we might very well have had war.
But let's be clear - a naval blockade is an act of war. Imagine if Obama was President in 1962. Who believes he would have ordered a blockade? Anyone doubt that he would have come to the American people announcing that he made a deal with Russia in order to avoid war? Anyone doubt that there would have been some agreed number of nuclear armed missiles in Cuba since 1962, with Russia being able to hold that threat over our heads ever since?
Obama: "...as Congress decides whether to support this historic diplomatic breakthrough or instead blocks it over the objection of the vast majority of the world." The last I looked it was Congress that represents the interests of the American people - not the UN, not Russia, not China, not the U.K., not France and not Germany. But Obama has never believed in our system of three co-equal branches of government. He very much believes in the UN, an entity run by dictators, Islamic states, and leftist Western democracies.
Obama: "...many of the same people who argued for the war in Iraq are now making the case against the Iran nuclear deal." Unless you are a complete pacifist and do not believe in war ever, then you understand that Iraq and Iran are two very different issues. But just to remind Obama, Senators voting in favor of the Iraq war resolution included: John Kerry, Joe Biden, Hillary Clinton, Diane Feinstein, Chuck Schumer and Harry Reid. Oops.
Obama: "...because this is such a strong deal, every nation in the world that has commented publicly, with the exception of the Israeli government, has expressed support." Obama could have said: "virtually every country in the world supports this deal." Why did he choose to publicly single out Israel? He did so because from day one he has sought to lessen the support the American people have for Israel. And that approach has substantially worked among rank and file democrats. And just to be clear, the Arab Sunni states have also voiced their displeasure with this deal.
Obama: "Now the final criticism, this is sort of catchall that you may hear, is the notion that there is a better deal to be had...I have repeatedly challenged anyone opposed to this deal to put forward a better, plausible alternative. I have yet to hear one." The purpose of this post is not to rehash all the arguments against this deal, and all the ways it could have been better. See the prior posts for that. Rather, notwithstanding all the alternatives put forth by Republicans in Congress and conservative commentators, Obama has heard nothing. And he says it with a straight face.
Obama: "It's those hardliners (in Iran) chanting "Death to America" who have been most opposed to the deal. They're making common cause with the Republican caucus." Once again, the Divider-in-Chief reveals his true nature. NEVER give any legitimacy to your opponents. In fact, demonize them and equate them with terrorists. It's straight out of the Saul Alinsky handbook.
So, this speech is a reflection of Obama's approach over the last 6 1/2 years: divide, lie, misrepresent, demonize your opposition, and, of course, isolate Israel. Perhaps the 8/7/15 Investor's Business Daily said it best: "Has there ever been a president who so depends on the ignorance of those listening to him?" I would only add: why not? It works so often.
After discussing the threat of war President Kennedy faced with the USSR, Obama said: "But the young President offered a different vision...with Kennedy at the helm, the Cuban Missile Crisis was resolved peacefully." After Kennedy was told that the Russians were moving nuclear missiles to Cuba, he ultimately ordered a naval blockade of Cuba. Had Russian ships breached the blockade, we might very well have had war.
But let's be clear - a naval blockade is an act of war. Imagine if Obama was President in 1962. Who believes he would have ordered a blockade? Anyone doubt that he would have come to the American people announcing that he made a deal with Russia in order to avoid war? Anyone doubt that there would have been some agreed number of nuclear armed missiles in Cuba since 1962, with Russia being able to hold that threat over our heads ever since?
Obama: "...as Congress decides whether to support this historic diplomatic breakthrough or instead blocks it over the objection of the vast majority of the world." The last I looked it was Congress that represents the interests of the American people - not the UN, not Russia, not China, not the U.K., not France and not Germany. But Obama has never believed in our system of three co-equal branches of government. He very much believes in the UN, an entity run by dictators, Islamic states, and leftist Western democracies.
Obama: "...many of the same people who argued for the war in Iraq are now making the case against the Iran nuclear deal." Unless you are a complete pacifist and do not believe in war ever, then you understand that Iraq and Iran are two very different issues. But just to remind Obama, Senators voting in favor of the Iraq war resolution included: John Kerry, Joe Biden, Hillary Clinton, Diane Feinstein, Chuck Schumer and Harry Reid. Oops.
Obama: "...because this is such a strong deal, every nation in the world that has commented publicly, with the exception of the Israeli government, has expressed support." Obama could have said: "virtually every country in the world supports this deal." Why did he choose to publicly single out Israel? He did so because from day one he has sought to lessen the support the American people have for Israel. And that approach has substantially worked among rank and file democrats. And just to be clear, the Arab Sunni states have also voiced their displeasure with this deal.
Obama: "Now the final criticism, this is sort of catchall that you may hear, is the notion that there is a better deal to be had...I have repeatedly challenged anyone opposed to this deal to put forward a better, plausible alternative. I have yet to hear one." The purpose of this post is not to rehash all the arguments against this deal, and all the ways it could have been better. See the prior posts for that. Rather, notwithstanding all the alternatives put forth by Republicans in Congress and conservative commentators, Obama has heard nothing. And he says it with a straight face.
Obama: "It's those hardliners (in Iran) chanting "Death to America" who have been most opposed to the deal. They're making common cause with the Republican caucus." Once again, the Divider-in-Chief reveals his true nature. NEVER give any legitimacy to your opponents. In fact, demonize them and equate them with terrorists. It's straight out of the Saul Alinsky handbook.
So, this speech is a reflection of Obama's approach over the last 6 1/2 years: divide, lie, misrepresent, demonize your opposition, and, of course, isolate Israel. Perhaps the 8/7/15 Investor's Business Daily said it best: "Has there ever been a president who so depends on the ignorance of those listening to him?" I would only add: why not? It works so often.
Sunday, August 2, 2015
More Views on the Iran Deal, Part II
The same Jewish Journal edition referred to in Part I printed the results of a poll of American Jews' opinions on the deal. Not surprisingly, 71% of those who self-identify as "liberal" support the deal. On the other hand, 72% of those who self identify as "conservative" oppose the deal. As Prager often says, for many liberal Jews "Liberalism" has replaced "Judaism" as their religion. While this shift to liberalism has been going on for some time, the problem has been exacerbated by Obama. Just as Obama has done his best to divide the 99% vs. the 1%, blacks vs. whites, the religious vs. the non-religious, and so on, he has also been effective in deepening the divide between liberal and conservative Jews when it comes to Israel.
When the NY Times and other mainstream media make Benjamin Netanyahu the fall guy in all of this, they are simply following Obama's lead. Obama has distanced himself from Israel and Netanyahu from day one. Recall his comment from 2009, his first year in office, that the US needed to put some distance between us and Israel, because when we were closely aligned with Israel (referring to the Bush years) nothing happened to foster peace with the "Palestinians." It was a total lie, of course, as during the Bush years Israel vacated Gaza and offered a state to Abbas.
From day one Obama has cozied up to the Muslim world, regardless of how radical and extremist they might be. In his speech to the Muslim world from Cairo in 2009 he invited the outlawed terrorist group The Muslim Brotherhood. When The Brotherhood won elections in Egypt after Mubarek was deposed, he sided with them against the current military leader Al-Sisi, who opposed radical Islam. Al-Sisi - the sole Arab leader to say that Islam needs a reformation away from the idea of killing non-Muslims - was opposed by Obama.
Obama did not support the "Green Revolution" in Iran. Obama bowed down to the Saudi King. And Obama considers the Islamic leader of Turkey (Erdogan) - a man who wants to take Turkey from being a secular state to an Islamist run state - one of his closest friends and allies in the world. Erdogan, who has made the former ally of his country, Israel, an enemy, is a man who Obama relates to well. Not so for Netanyahu, the leader of the only democratic country in the Middle East.
The Truth-Uncensored: So what is going on here? Obama is not a stupid man. I have said that his two main goals were redistribution of wealth, and reducing America's footprint and power in the world. How he reaches these goals is of no import - he can lie, be deceptive, be duplicitous, without the slightest hesitation. He is, as one friend noted, Machiavellian.
So, we can assume that Obama knows this "deal" is worthless. If he intended to make a serious deal he would not have dropped every single requirement that he originally said was mandatory. Therefore, Obama knows and assumes that Iran will get nuclear bombs, either now or in the not too distant future. Once Iran has nukes, it not only makes it more difficult, if not unlikely that Israel will attack Iran; it also makes it difficult if not impossible for the next President to consider an attack.
Think about this - one of Obama's other goals was a nuclear-free world. So why would he make a deal that even he acknowledges will allow another country - Iran - to get nukes? And Iran is not just any country, it is the leading state sponsor of terrorism in the world.
On the one hand, one can argue that he believes a nuclear Iran will help reduce America's influence in the Middle East. After all, he is actually reducing the size of our Army as the world grows increasingly more dangerous. Clearly, he does not foresee further American involvement in the Middle East regardless of what Iran may do. One can also argue that he actually believes that a strong Iran reduces the chances of war, although I am not sure that he would care one way or the other.
Ernest Christian, a Treasury official during the Ford Administration, wrote this in the 7/31/15 Investor's Business Daily: "The historical imperative that America should always give way to the demands of Second and Third World countries and cultures is what may now become known as the 'Obama Doctrine.'" To which I would add: "especially if it is a Muslim country to which we are giving way." Sadly, this truism from Mr. Christian applies no matter how dictatorial or ruthless these other countries' leaders may be.
When the NY Times and other mainstream media make Benjamin Netanyahu the fall guy in all of this, they are simply following Obama's lead. Obama has distanced himself from Israel and Netanyahu from day one. Recall his comment from 2009, his first year in office, that the US needed to put some distance between us and Israel, because when we were closely aligned with Israel (referring to the Bush years) nothing happened to foster peace with the "Palestinians." It was a total lie, of course, as during the Bush years Israel vacated Gaza and offered a state to Abbas.
From day one Obama has cozied up to the Muslim world, regardless of how radical and extremist they might be. In his speech to the Muslim world from Cairo in 2009 he invited the outlawed terrorist group The Muslim Brotherhood. When The Brotherhood won elections in Egypt after Mubarek was deposed, he sided with them against the current military leader Al-Sisi, who opposed radical Islam. Al-Sisi - the sole Arab leader to say that Islam needs a reformation away from the idea of killing non-Muslims - was opposed by Obama.
Obama did not support the "Green Revolution" in Iran. Obama bowed down to the Saudi King. And Obama considers the Islamic leader of Turkey (Erdogan) - a man who wants to take Turkey from being a secular state to an Islamist run state - one of his closest friends and allies in the world. Erdogan, who has made the former ally of his country, Israel, an enemy, is a man who Obama relates to well. Not so for Netanyahu, the leader of the only democratic country in the Middle East.
The Truth-Uncensored: So what is going on here? Obama is not a stupid man. I have said that his two main goals were redistribution of wealth, and reducing America's footprint and power in the world. How he reaches these goals is of no import - he can lie, be deceptive, be duplicitous, without the slightest hesitation. He is, as one friend noted, Machiavellian.
So, we can assume that Obama knows this "deal" is worthless. If he intended to make a serious deal he would not have dropped every single requirement that he originally said was mandatory. Therefore, Obama knows and assumes that Iran will get nuclear bombs, either now or in the not too distant future. Once Iran has nukes, it not only makes it more difficult, if not unlikely that Israel will attack Iran; it also makes it difficult if not impossible for the next President to consider an attack.
Think about this - one of Obama's other goals was a nuclear-free world. So why would he make a deal that even he acknowledges will allow another country - Iran - to get nukes? And Iran is not just any country, it is the leading state sponsor of terrorism in the world.
On the one hand, one can argue that he believes a nuclear Iran will help reduce America's influence in the Middle East. After all, he is actually reducing the size of our Army as the world grows increasingly more dangerous. Clearly, he does not foresee further American involvement in the Middle East regardless of what Iran may do. One can also argue that he actually believes that a strong Iran reduces the chances of war, although I am not sure that he would care one way or the other.
Ernest Christian, a Treasury official during the Ford Administration, wrote this in the 7/31/15 Investor's Business Daily: "The historical imperative that America should always give way to the demands of Second and Third World countries and cultures is what may now become known as the 'Obama Doctrine.'" To which I would add: "especially if it is a Muslim country to which we are giving way." Sadly, this truism from Mr. Christian applies no matter how dictatorial or ruthless these other countries' leaders may be.
More Views on the Iran Deal, Part I
The New York Times in their 8/2/15 editorial said: "The unseemly spectacle of lawmakers siding with a foreign leader (referring to Israeli leader Benjamin Netanyahu) against their own commander in chief has widened an already dangerous breach between two old allies." Obama's false options were make this deal or it's war. For the anti-Semitic NY Times, their straw man is the Israeli leader. Never mind that the Sunni Arab nations also oppose this deal. No, for the Times it's 'let's blame the Jew if this deal fails in Congress.'
Furthermore, the Times clearly thinks as Obama does - Congress is merely to act as a rubber stamp for anything Obama wants. No need for Congress to actually exercise their Constitutional powers. The truth is that there should be no deal unless it is approved by 2/3 of the Senators then present when voted upon, as the Constitution requires for all treaties. But Obama and the Times have no use for the Constitution or Congress, so Obama calls this agreement a "deal" rather than a "treaty."
The Wall Street Journal in their 8/1-8/2/15 editorial was discussing the newly discovered "side deals" being made between Iran and the IAEA - the terms of which Congress and the American people are never to be privy to. Said the Journal: "The Administration claims this is no big deal because Iran and the IAEA are entitled to reach a non-disclosed understanding to resolve their differences." "This is pretty standard," quoting Energy Secretary Ernest Moniz.
The Journal continued: "So much for President Obama's assurances that the deal isn't based on trust but on "unprecedented verification." Quoting U.S. Rep. Mike Pompeo, of the House Intelligence Committee: "Is there an independent penalty for violations of the side deals?" No one knows, and Obama clearly does not care.
The Jewish Journal of Los Angeles, in their 7/31-8/6/15 edition, printed two different open letters from two different sets of Rabbis. The Rabbis against the deal said: "We hope and pray that G-d will assist us in ushering in for the entire world a time promised by Isaiah (2:4) when "nation shall not lift up sword against nation, neither shall they engage in war anymore," when peace will prevail. Until then, we simply cannot afford to empower and enrich a regime that continues to lift its sword without mercy towards so many who stand for good, freedom and peace." Some realism by these Rabbis.
The Rabbis in support of the deal said this: "We fear then that only a military response will stop Iran in its march to nuclear capability. We are deeply worried that thousands of Hezbollah rockets will be launched against Tel Aviv, Haifa and everywhere in between, causing death and mayhem to our people and the State of Israel, and sparking regional conflagration." Is Hezbollah more or less likely to use those rockets and missiles when they are backed by a newly empowered and enriched Iran? And what fear do these Rabbis have of the Ayatollahs having nukes?
After all, Ayatollah Khamenei has a new book out entitled "Palestine." On the book's jacket is a picture of a map of "Palestine" - where the State of Israel used to exist. Khamenei explains that Israel should not exist because it is an ally of the "Great Satan," the USA; and because Israel is an "infidel" that has engaged in war against Muslims; and because Israel "occupies" Jerusalem, the third holiest city in Islam. Funny, that is what Obama says about Jerusalem. Anyway, clearly there is nothing for the pro-deal Rabbis to worry about if the Ayatollah controls nukes.
Furthermore, the Times clearly thinks as Obama does - Congress is merely to act as a rubber stamp for anything Obama wants. No need for Congress to actually exercise their Constitutional powers. The truth is that there should be no deal unless it is approved by 2/3 of the Senators then present when voted upon, as the Constitution requires for all treaties. But Obama and the Times have no use for the Constitution or Congress, so Obama calls this agreement a "deal" rather than a "treaty."
The Wall Street Journal in their 8/1-8/2/15 editorial was discussing the newly discovered "side deals" being made between Iran and the IAEA - the terms of which Congress and the American people are never to be privy to. Said the Journal: "The Administration claims this is no big deal because Iran and the IAEA are entitled to reach a non-disclosed understanding to resolve their differences." "This is pretty standard," quoting Energy Secretary Ernest Moniz.
The Journal continued: "So much for President Obama's assurances that the deal isn't based on trust but on "unprecedented verification." Quoting U.S. Rep. Mike Pompeo, of the House Intelligence Committee: "Is there an independent penalty for violations of the side deals?" No one knows, and Obama clearly does not care.
The Jewish Journal of Los Angeles, in their 7/31-8/6/15 edition, printed two different open letters from two different sets of Rabbis. The Rabbis against the deal said: "We hope and pray that G-d will assist us in ushering in for the entire world a time promised by Isaiah (2:4) when "nation shall not lift up sword against nation, neither shall they engage in war anymore," when peace will prevail. Until then, we simply cannot afford to empower and enrich a regime that continues to lift its sword without mercy towards so many who stand for good, freedom and peace." Some realism by these Rabbis.
The Rabbis in support of the deal said this: "We fear then that only a military response will stop Iran in its march to nuclear capability. We are deeply worried that thousands of Hezbollah rockets will be launched against Tel Aviv, Haifa and everywhere in between, causing death and mayhem to our people and the State of Israel, and sparking regional conflagration." Is Hezbollah more or less likely to use those rockets and missiles when they are backed by a newly empowered and enriched Iran? And what fear do these Rabbis have of the Ayatollahs having nukes?
After all, Ayatollah Khamenei has a new book out entitled "Palestine." On the book's jacket is a picture of a map of "Palestine" - where the State of Israel used to exist. Khamenei explains that Israel should not exist because it is an ally of the "Great Satan," the USA; and because Israel is an "infidel" that has engaged in war against Muslims; and because Israel "occupies" Jerusalem, the third holiest city in Islam. Funny, that is what Obama says about Jerusalem. Anyway, clearly there is nothing for the pro-deal Rabbis to worry about if the Ayatollah controls nukes.
Sunday, July 26, 2015
Divergent Views on the Iran Deal, Part II
Senator John Risch, Rep., Idaho, accused Kerry of being one of"the most naive people in the history of the earth." Defending Kerry was CA Senator Barbara Boxer, claiming that if Kerry was "bamboozled, the world was bamboozled." First, I think we can agree that Kerry was leading the negotiations with Iran. Second, the rest of the world is not aligned with the interests of the United States; so if Kerry was bamboozled I think we can agree that Russia and China were not, perhaps being quite content to have Iran have the capabilities of threatening America. They don't seem to shout "Death to Russia" or "Death to China" in Iran. I think we need to put Boxer up there among the most naive people on earth.
The New York Times 7/15/15 editorial: The deal "puts strong, verifiable limits on Iran's ability to develop a nuclear weapon for at least the next 10 to 15 years and is potentially one of the most consequential accords in recent diplomatic history, with the ability not just to keep Iran from obtaining a nuclear weapon but also to reshape Middle East politics." Well, I do agree on the reshaping of Middle East politics. Perhaps the biggest accomplishment in this deal is the fact that Israel and Saudi Arabia have been working together to denounce this agreement.
Mitt Romney: "...Iran is led by suicidal, apocalypse-seeking, America-hating, Israel-denying theocratic fanatics. If these Ayatollahs have nuclear weapons, they will use them, someday, somewhere. Iran is a major, longtime state sponsor of terrorism; its leaders are entirely bereft of restraint, decency and respect for human life." I still cannot believe that this decent, clear-headed man is not our President.
Dennis Prager: "And whoever believes that the agreement will bring Iran into "the community of nations" betrays a breathtaking ignorance about the Iranian regime." Actually, those believers need only be liberals, people who let their beliefs dictate their reality.
Prager: "The Iranian regime has executed more people than any country except China (and probably North Korea, for which data are unavailable). The Iranian regime has killed more than 6,000 gays for being homosexual. No woman is allowed to leave the country or even to work outside her home without the permission of her husband." The brave folks on the left would rather look the other way than face these unpleasant truths. And the mainstream media would rather talk about the latest comment from Donald Trump.
John Kerry, when questioned about the possibility of Israel attacking Iran: "That'd be an enormous mistake, a huge mistake with grave consequences for Israel and for the region, and I don't think it's necessary." And what if Congress votes down the deal? Kerry: "I fear that what could happen is if Congress were to overturn it, our friends in Israel could actually wind up being more isolated and more blamed."
During last year's Gaza war, it was you Mr. Kerry who isolated and blamed Israel. While Israel had to fight the terrorist group Hamas, which hid among the civilian population in Gaza, while firing their rockets into Israel's civilian population centers, it was you who was caught unawares on an open mic blaming Israel rather than Hamas for the civilian casualties. Remember your comments, Mr. Kerry: "It's a hell of a pinpoint operation; it's a hell of a pinpoint operation." So, yes, Israel will be blamed and isolated, with you and your boss leading the charge.
Philippe Assouline: "The unprecedented wealth and military might of Western democracies were exposed as a Potemkin village...Thrown to the wolves were the West's allies, and the idea of Western resolve itself."
I'll end with a quote from Jackie Mason, that famous Jewish, and conservative, comedian: "Do you know that in the restaurants of New York, they have an inspection system. You can surprise any restaurant without notice, that you can walk in and inspect them...so we are protected in this city from a bad tuna fish. We're not protected from a bomb but we're protected from a bad quality of tuna fish."
The New York Times 7/15/15 editorial: The deal "puts strong, verifiable limits on Iran's ability to develop a nuclear weapon for at least the next 10 to 15 years and is potentially one of the most consequential accords in recent diplomatic history, with the ability not just to keep Iran from obtaining a nuclear weapon but also to reshape Middle East politics." Well, I do agree on the reshaping of Middle East politics. Perhaps the biggest accomplishment in this deal is the fact that Israel and Saudi Arabia have been working together to denounce this agreement.
Mitt Romney: "...Iran is led by suicidal, apocalypse-seeking, America-hating, Israel-denying theocratic fanatics. If these Ayatollahs have nuclear weapons, they will use them, someday, somewhere. Iran is a major, longtime state sponsor of terrorism; its leaders are entirely bereft of restraint, decency and respect for human life." I still cannot believe that this decent, clear-headed man is not our President.
Dennis Prager: "And whoever believes that the agreement will bring Iran into "the community of nations" betrays a breathtaking ignorance about the Iranian regime." Actually, those believers need only be liberals, people who let their beliefs dictate their reality.
Prager: "The Iranian regime has executed more people than any country except China (and probably North Korea, for which data are unavailable). The Iranian regime has killed more than 6,000 gays for being homosexual. No woman is allowed to leave the country or even to work outside her home without the permission of her husband." The brave folks on the left would rather look the other way than face these unpleasant truths. And the mainstream media would rather talk about the latest comment from Donald Trump.
John Kerry, when questioned about the possibility of Israel attacking Iran: "That'd be an enormous mistake, a huge mistake with grave consequences for Israel and for the region, and I don't think it's necessary." And what if Congress votes down the deal? Kerry: "I fear that what could happen is if Congress were to overturn it, our friends in Israel could actually wind up being more isolated and more blamed."
During last year's Gaza war, it was you Mr. Kerry who isolated and blamed Israel. While Israel had to fight the terrorist group Hamas, which hid among the civilian population in Gaza, while firing their rockets into Israel's civilian population centers, it was you who was caught unawares on an open mic blaming Israel rather than Hamas for the civilian casualties. Remember your comments, Mr. Kerry: "It's a hell of a pinpoint operation; it's a hell of a pinpoint operation." So, yes, Israel will be blamed and isolated, with you and your boss leading the charge.
Philippe Assouline: "The unprecedented wealth and military might of Western democracies were exposed as a Potemkin village...Thrown to the wolves were the West's allies, and the idea of Western resolve itself."
I'll end with a quote from Jackie Mason, that famous Jewish, and conservative, comedian: "Do you know that in the restaurants of New York, they have an inspection system. You can surprise any restaurant without notice, that you can walk in and inspect them...so we are protected in this city from a bad tuna fish. We're not protected from a bomb but we're protected from a bad quality of tuna fish."
Divergent Views on the Iran Deal, Part I
Barack Obama: "I welcome a robust debate in Congress on this issue, and I welcome scrutiny of the details of this agreement." You mean, as long as Congress does not think that they have any say in the matter, as you also said: "I will veto any legislation that prevents the successful implementation of this deal." Then again, part of your "fundamental change" has been to completely disregard the other two branches of government from the day you took office.
The Wall Street Journal in their 7/21/15 editorial: "This has been Mr. Obama's strategy all along-to present Congress with a political fait accompli. First, he constructed the negotiation as an executive agreement, rather than as a treaty that would have required a two-thirds vote of approval in the Senate...And now the U.N. vote lets him assert that disapproval in Congress will pit America against the rest of the world outside the Middle East."
The New York Times in their 7/19/15 editorial expressed concern that both Israel and Saudi Arabia "have issued alarming denunciations of the United States." What if Iran bordered the US; I wonder how many liberals would also be issuing "alarming" criticisms of this deal. The Times quoted the former Saudi ambassador to the US as saying the deal would "wreak havoc" on the Middle East. Seems like those who live in the neighborhood agree that it is a bad idea to give the Ayatollahs nukes.
Barack Obama: "There really are only two alternatives here. Either the issue of Iran obtaining a nuclear weapon is resolved diplomatically through a negotiation or it's resolved through force, through war." Is that what it was, a negotiation? And I thought it was a capitulation. When the other side knows you are desperate for a deal, any deal, then you can be assured they will get what they want. And so they did. And no, those were not the only two options. A much better deal was a much better option.
The WSJ in their 7/15/15 editorial: "Perhaps most dismaying is that this nuclear deal also lifts sanctions on Iran's conventional weapons trade in five years, and ballistic missiles in eight." Hold on. How many times did Obama and Kerry and others tell us that this deal was only about the nukes? That was why they did not insist on Iran changing their terrorist-supporting ways, or ask Iran to release American hostages, or insist Iran stop threatening to wipe Israel off the map, and so on. So how did these other weapons make it into the deal? Simple, Iran insisted and the West caved. You see, Iran acted as the superpower during these negotiations, and the West seemed to agree.
Barack Obama: "We have stopped the spread of nuclear weapons in this region." Except that there is a general consensus that the opposite will occur; starting with Saudi Arabia using their gazillion dollars to purchase nukes from Pakistan. Obama: "...this deal meets every single one of the bottom lines that we established..." Uh, not quite. In fact, none of the bottom lines made it into the final deal. Not the anywhere, anytime inspections. Not forcing Iran to come clean on their past military applications for nukes. Not waiting for the lifting of sanctions. And certainly not the dismantling of their nuclear infrastructure. So, did Obama just lie to the American people yet again?
Michael Ramirez is a well known political cartoonist. In today's Ventura County Star is a six frame cartoon that shows Obama in each frame saying the following: 1. "This will prevent Iran from developing nuclear weapons..." 2. "And prevent a nuclear arms race." 3. "And create shovel ready jobs..." 4. And lower your premiums by $2500..." 5. "And if you like your doctor..." 6. "Uh, where was I again?" Where indeed.
The Wall Street Journal in their 7/21/15 editorial: "This has been Mr. Obama's strategy all along-to present Congress with a political fait accompli. First, he constructed the negotiation as an executive agreement, rather than as a treaty that would have required a two-thirds vote of approval in the Senate...And now the U.N. vote lets him assert that disapproval in Congress will pit America against the rest of the world outside the Middle East."
The New York Times in their 7/19/15 editorial expressed concern that both Israel and Saudi Arabia "have issued alarming denunciations of the United States." What if Iran bordered the US; I wonder how many liberals would also be issuing "alarming" criticisms of this deal. The Times quoted the former Saudi ambassador to the US as saying the deal would "wreak havoc" on the Middle East. Seems like those who live in the neighborhood agree that it is a bad idea to give the Ayatollahs nukes.
Barack Obama: "There really are only two alternatives here. Either the issue of Iran obtaining a nuclear weapon is resolved diplomatically through a negotiation or it's resolved through force, through war." Is that what it was, a negotiation? And I thought it was a capitulation. When the other side knows you are desperate for a deal, any deal, then you can be assured they will get what they want. And so they did. And no, those were not the only two options. A much better deal was a much better option.
The WSJ in their 7/15/15 editorial: "Perhaps most dismaying is that this nuclear deal also lifts sanctions on Iran's conventional weapons trade in five years, and ballistic missiles in eight." Hold on. How many times did Obama and Kerry and others tell us that this deal was only about the nukes? That was why they did not insist on Iran changing their terrorist-supporting ways, or ask Iran to release American hostages, or insist Iran stop threatening to wipe Israel off the map, and so on. So how did these other weapons make it into the deal? Simple, Iran insisted and the West caved. You see, Iran acted as the superpower during these negotiations, and the West seemed to agree.
Barack Obama: "We have stopped the spread of nuclear weapons in this region." Except that there is a general consensus that the opposite will occur; starting with Saudi Arabia using their gazillion dollars to purchase nukes from Pakistan. Obama: "...this deal meets every single one of the bottom lines that we established..." Uh, not quite. In fact, none of the bottom lines made it into the final deal. Not the anywhere, anytime inspections. Not forcing Iran to come clean on their past military applications for nukes. Not waiting for the lifting of sanctions. And certainly not the dismantling of their nuclear infrastructure. So, did Obama just lie to the American people yet again?
Michael Ramirez is a well known political cartoonist. In today's Ventura County Star is a six frame cartoon that shows Obama in each frame saying the following: 1. "This will prevent Iran from developing nuclear weapons..." 2. "And prevent a nuclear arms race." 3. "And create shovel ready jobs..." 4. And lower your premiums by $2500..." 5. "And if you like your doctor..." 6. "Uh, where was I again?" Where indeed.
Tuesday, July 14, 2015
Some Deal
Given that Russia and Syria are speaking very highly of the newly announced nuclear arms deal between the Western powers and Iran, one might think that seeing who supports the deal tells you all you need to know. Never mind that our allies in the region say it's a bad deal.
Iran can continue to enrich uranium - up to a point. Iran can still develop advanced centrifuges. The Arak heavy water reactor stays open, with some modifications. The IAEA does not get complete access to all sites. Sanctions will be ending soon, and Iran will see an infusion of $100-150 billion, all of which can be used to continue their unprecedented sponsorship of terrorism.
That's right. We did not ask any change in Iran's behavior. Just this past weekend, at a rally attended by the Iranian President, the crowd was chanting "Death to America" and "Death to Israel." Iran may continue its support of terrorism, and continue to threaten to wipe Israel off the map. As for the Americans being held hostage by Iran (Pastor Saeed, former Marine Amir Hekmati, Washington Post journalist Jason Rezaian, and retired FBI agent Robert Levinson)? You don't think Obama insisted on their release, do you?
As for the Israelis, there is no separation of opinion from left to right to center of the political spectrum. Isaac Herzog, of the left wing Zionist Union Party (formerly Labor), said: "...with regard to security, I am more extreme than Netanyahu." Conservative Education Minister Naftali Bennett said: "...this day will be remembered as a black day in the history of the free world."
Centrist Yair Lapid of Yesh Atid said it's "a bad day for the Jewish people." Right wing former Foreign Minister Avigdor Liberman said "the agreement with Iran will be remembered in history the same way as the Munich Agreement that led to World War II and the agreement with North Korea that led to its nuclearization."
Obama today, in announcing the deal, said the US negotiated from a position of strength. While the US was clearly the stronger power, we acted like the far weaker power. One concession after the next was given to Iran. Virtually none of the original red lines drawn by Obama made it into the final deal.
In 1939, when British Prime Minister Neville Chamberlain met with Hitler, the deal then was that Germany would be able to take over part of Czechoslovakia (the Sudetenland). Chamberlain triumphantly returned to Britain famously announcing that he had achieved "peace in our time." Signing off on the deal with Britain were France and the US. Starting to sound familiar? Czechoslovakia was not invited; rather, they were sold out by the other Western powers. Only, history has shown that appeasing a tyrant like Hitler did not lesson the likelihood of war. Those odds were enhanced as Germany perceived the West as being weak. What do you think Iran thinks of the West, after they made one concession after the next?
Guess who was not included in the negotiations with Iran? Israel. Out of a tragic past, and therefore necessity, the Israelis are, if nothing else, students of history. There is no doubt that they see themselves as the Czechoslovakia of the Iranian deal. A nuclear armed Iran constitutes the greatest threat to Israel's very existence.
I could not get two different scenarios out of my mind today. The first: In six months or so, a White House aide goes running into the Oval Office. "Mr. President! Iran secretly developed nukes and has launched them at Israel. Millions of Israelis may be dead." Obama: "This won't delay my golf game I hope. We tee off in 5 minutes." The second: The aide runs into the Oval Office and announces "Mr. President! Israel has launched a major assault on Iran's nuclear facilities." Obama: "That son of a bitch Netanyahu! Send in the 6th Fleet and have them bomb Israel's nuclear facilities. I'll show Netanyahu who the boss is!"
Far fetched? Impossible? What's most scary to me is that I could not imagine ever getting to the point where such things are even imaginable. Yet here we are. What do you think Obama would do if Israel "ruined" his major foreign policy achievement and bombed Iran? Think Obama would stand by Israel then? Who would you stand with - Obama or Israel?
Iran can continue to enrich uranium - up to a point. Iran can still develop advanced centrifuges. The Arak heavy water reactor stays open, with some modifications. The IAEA does not get complete access to all sites. Sanctions will be ending soon, and Iran will see an infusion of $100-150 billion, all of which can be used to continue their unprecedented sponsorship of terrorism.
That's right. We did not ask any change in Iran's behavior. Just this past weekend, at a rally attended by the Iranian President, the crowd was chanting "Death to America" and "Death to Israel." Iran may continue its support of terrorism, and continue to threaten to wipe Israel off the map. As for the Americans being held hostage by Iran (Pastor Saeed, former Marine Amir Hekmati, Washington Post journalist Jason Rezaian, and retired FBI agent Robert Levinson)? You don't think Obama insisted on their release, do you?
As for the Israelis, there is no separation of opinion from left to right to center of the political spectrum. Isaac Herzog, of the left wing Zionist Union Party (formerly Labor), said: "...with regard to security, I am more extreme than Netanyahu." Conservative Education Minister Naftali Bennett said: "...this day will be remembered as a black day in the history of the free world."
Centrist Yair Lapid of Yesh Atid said it's "a bad day for the Jewish people." Right wing former Foreign Minister Avigdor Liberman said "the agreement with Iran will be remembered in history the same way as the Munich Agreement that led to World War II and the agreement with North Korea that led to its nuclearization."
Obama today, in announcing the deal, said the US negotiated from a position of strength. While the US was clearly the stronger power, we acted like the far weaker power. One concession after the next was given to Iran. Virtually none of the original red lines drawn by Obama made it into the final deal.
In 1939, when British Prime Minister Neville Chamberlain met with Hitler, the deal then was that Germany would be able to take over part of Czechoslovakia (the Sudetenland). Chamberlain triumphantly returned to Britain famously announcing that he had achieved "peace in our time." Signing off on the deal with Britain were France and the US. Starting to sound familiar? Czechoslovakia was not invited; rather, they were sold out by the other Western powers. Only, history has shown that appeasing a tyrant like Hitler did not lesson the likelihood of war. Those odds were enhanced as Germany perceived the West as being weak. What do you think Iran thinks of the West, after they made one concession after the next?
Guess who was not included in the negotiations with Iran? Israel. Out of a tragic past, and therefore necessity, the Israelis are, if nothing else, students of history. There is no doubt that they see themselves as the Czechoslovakia of the Iranian deal. A nuclear armed Iran constitutes the greatest threat to Israel's very existence.
I could not get two different scenarios out of my mind today. The first: In six months or so, a White House aide goes running into the Oval Office. "Mr. President! Iran secretly developed nukes and has launched them at Israel. Millions of Israelis may be dead." Obama: "This won't delay my golf game I hope. We tee off in 5 minutes." The second: The aide runs into the Oval Office and announces "Mr. President! Israel has launched a major assault on Iran's nuclear facilities." Obama: "That son of a bitch Netanyahu! Send in the 6th Fleet and have them bomb Israel's nuclear facilities. I'll show Netanyahu who the boss is!"
Far fetched? Impossible? What's most scary to me is that I could not imagine ever getting to the point where such things are even imaginable. Yet here we are. What do you think Obama would do if Israel "ruined" his major foreign policy achievement and bombed Iran? Think Obama would stand by Israel then? Who would you stand with - Obama or Israel?
Subscribe to:
Posts (Atom)