+++++++++++++++++++++++++
Two insights:
Biden’s already backing down on Iran
The president sent a strong message to Tehran about nuclear talks. A day later, his spokesperson walked it back, showing that Obama-era appeasers remain in charge.
In his first major foreign-policy speech delivered last week, President Joe Biden sent a variety of confusing and mixed messages, but one thing was clear: Whatever Donald Trump was for, he was against. Thus, he sounded tough on Russia but soft on China. And though he paid lip service to the idea that his administration would emphasize cooperation with allies, once you got into the details about that idea, it was obvious that Biden wasn’t terribly interested in working with Israel and Saudi Arabia—America’s two most important friends in the Middle East.
That contradicted the narrative about Trump’s “America First” policies and those Biden says he will pursue. So did the president’s assertion that there would be no line between foreign and domestic policy, and that the best interests of American workers would be paramount in his objectives, which sounds like an echo of Trump’s policies.
But the real contradiction about his foreign policy is not the one between Biden and Trump. It may be the one between Biden and Biden. If a major Biden policy stand on Iran can’t last even a day, then it’s not certain who’s in charge—the president, or his handlers and staff, who may think the president can’t be trusted to stick to the policies they’ve drawn up for him if let loose in an interview on television.
On Sunday, Biden appeared in a much-publicized pre-Super Bowl interview on CBS with Norah O’Donnell. When she asked about Iran, he sounded as tough as nails when it comes to talks to get them back into compliance with the dangerously weak nuclear deal that his Obama administration colleagues negotiated in 2015.
In response to O’Donnell’s question as to whether he will lift sanctions on Iran before it ceases its illegal uranium enrichment activities in order to entice them back to the negotiating table, Biden was firm: “No,” was his reply. She followed that up by asking, “They have to stop enriching uranium first?” Biden solemnly nodded in assent.
But when asked about this the next day at the daily White House press briefing, spokeswoman Jen Psaki made it clear that when it comes to enunciating policy, the president isn’t the final authority in this White House.
When a reporter noted that in response to Biden’s statement, Iran Supreme Leader Ayatollah Ali Khamenei enunciated that Iran will not cease its work towards a nuclear weapon or move back into compliance with the deal before Biden lifts sanctions on them, Psaki made it clear that when it comes to Biden’s statements on the subject, we shouldn’t believe our lying eyes and ears.
Here’s the exchange as reported by RealClearPolitics.com:
“Since then, the [Iranian] Supreme Leader has said the U.S. needs to act first,” CBS’s Weijia Jiang told Psaki. “Is this a non-negotiable point for President Biden, and if so, how do you get out of this stalemate?”
“Just to be clear, the president never said that, exactly,” the White House press secretary replied. “It was stated by the interviewer, Norah O’Donnell, and he didn’t respond to the question.”
“Well, he nodded,” said Jiang.
“I think if we were announcing a major policy change, we would do it in a different way than a slight head nod,” Psaki replied, saying that their position has not changed.
That’s good news for Khamenei and the rest of the Islamist theocrats, who have probably had trouble containing their glee over the announcement that veteran Iran and terror appeaser Robert Malley had been named as Biden’s point man on the issue.
It was a signal to anyone who had any doubts that Malley and the rest of the Obama alumni association that has returned to the corridors of power that just as was the case from 2013 to 2015 during the first round of Iran negotiations, whenever the ayatollahs say “no,” Americans desperate for a deal at any price will merely concede the point and move on to their next concession.
Nor is this a minor point. If Iran doesn’t at least go back to the situation that existed in January 2017, then Biden’s talk about the necessity for resuming the agreement that was former President Barack Obama’s signature foreign-policy achievement is meaningless.
Even if Iran were to do so, that wouldn’t make the pact any less perilous for the security of Middle Eastern countries or the West. The sunset clauses that the Iranians insisted upon will start expiring in just a few years, meaning that by the end of the decade, Iran will be able to openly pursue nukes with Western permission. Those clauses must be eliminated in a renegotiated agreement or the United States—and its allies—will be forced to either accept a nuclear Iran or take military action. The same goes for the fact that the pact does nothing to restrain Tehran’s military adventurism or its support for international terror groups.
But if Biden’s foreign-policy team is strong enough to force him to walk back a sensibly tough stand so quickly, then there is little hope that he is tough enough to insist on a renegotiation, instead of meekly accepting whatever it is that Iran is willing to give the White House in order to have its formal permission to proceed further down the road towards a goal that all recent American presidents have vowed to stop.
But that wasn’t the only gift to Iran from the Biden administration in the last week.
On Friday, the State Department told Congress that, along with other measures demonstrating the administration’s displeasure with the Saudis, it was reversing the Trump administration’s designation of Yemen’s Houthi rebels as a terrorist group as part of an effort to end the war in that country. That sounds like a noble thing to do, as it’s true that both the Saudis and their Yemen government allies are an unsavory bunch. However, the choice is not between authoritarians and liberals, but between friendly authoritarians and Islamist terrorists like the Houthis, who are Iranian auxiliaries. The war in Yemen is a human-rights disaster, but letting Iran and the Houthis—who unsurprisingly responded to Biden’s gesture by escalating the fighting rather than standing down—prevail would make the situation even worse.
Just as important, the pressure on the Saudis is an indication the Biden is just as unconcerned about the fact that their goodwill was essential to the Abraham Accords. Couple that with Biden’s signal that he will cancel arms sales to the United Arab Emirates that were part of the negotiations that led to the accords, and it’s clear that the administration has no real interest in expanding or even preserving Trump’s peace breakthrough.
While Biden and Secretary of State Anthony Blinken speak at times as if they care about the alliance with Israel (though the president has still yet to speak to Prime Minister Benjamin Netanyahu since his inauguration), virtually every step the administration is taking undermines the relationship with the Jewish state.
Jonathan S. Tobin is editor in chief of JNS.org and a senior contributor for The Federalist, a columnist for the New York Post, Newsweek and Haaretz. He can be reached via e-mail at: jtobin@jns.org. Follow him on Twitter at @jonathans_tobin and on Facebook at https://www.facebook.com/
And:
What George Shultz Taught Us About Making Policy
Begin with a goal, focus on the long term, talk to the other side, and never make empty threats.
By John F. Cogan and John B. Taylor
George Shultz testifies before a Senate committee, Feb. 29, 2000.
Photo: mario tama/Agence France-Presse/Getty Images
To the world, George P. Shultz was one of the 20th century’s most consequential people—a giant of economics and diplomacy. The man we knew had a unique ability to translate ideas into policies. Call it “the Shultz way.”
It always began with a goal. He wanted to expand liberty and prosperity and knew free markets were the best way to do it. At Princeton he’d been a varsity football player, and he often used sports analogies. The “accountability factor is unavoidable in all sports,” he’d say. “The free market system is one of accountability, which will work relentlessly against bad performance and reward the good.”
In developing policies, the Shultz way took account of the politics surrounding an issue but never lost sight of the goal. In 1971, as director of the Office of Management and Budget, he explained his approach to policy making in a speech to the Economic Club of Chicago. “Those of you familiar with sailing know what a telltale is—a strip of cloth tied to a mast to show which way the wind is blowing,” he explained. “A captain has the choice of steering his ship by the telltale, following the prevailing winds, or to steer by the compass. In a democracy, you must keep your eye on the telltale, but you must set your course by the compass.”
His policy approach focused on the long term. He sought to identify challenges as they emerged and develop policies to ensure that they didn’t become problems. He loved bringing people together to hash out policy solutions. Shultz was the “great convener.” He regularly gave dinners and lunches at his house on the Stanford campus or in San Francisco. He held seminars in his conference rooms at the Hoover Institution, bringing together diverse groups of academics. He hosted Nobel Laureates like Milton Friedman and Gary Becker at an annual economists weekend in Monterey, Calif. Policy makers of both parties—including former presidents—eagerly accepted his invitations and will miss them now that he is gone.
These get-togethers were, in part, social. But they also had a more important purpose: to develop big policies and figure out how to turn ideas to action.
Shultz’s meetings produced many policy papers and op-eds. He would suggest a topic and drafts would circulate. In the Shultz way, it didn’t matter whether the policy ideas came from liberals or conservatives. Ideas were judged on their merits. He was a Republican, but his approach to policy development was nonpartisan. The Shultz way focused on steering the discussion to managerial or administrative actions that didn’t violate principles.
“Trust is the coin of the realm” was his famous phrase. In Shultz’s view, mutual trust was necessary to achieving progress in all walks of life. Between a government and its diverse citizens, it was essential: “Above all, governing diversity requires trust among all. Without trust, regulations to impose standards of conduct proliferate . . . bringing more and more litigation, which only keeps diverse people apart and obstructs the goal of E pluribus unum.”
The Shultz way recognized the importance of public and private institutions. As dean of the University of Chicago’s business school, leader of four government cabinet agencies, and a Hoover and Stanford fellow, he devoted himself to institutional improvements. He also built new institutions. He once threw a party for the famous economist Robert Solow, who was visiting from MIT. Shultz noticed that his Stanford friends didn’t seem to know each other very well, so he started a new campus think tank—the Stanford Institute for Economic Policy Research—to give them a place to meet and share ideas. It thrives today.
Shultz recognized that true wisdom comes from a lifetime of learning. In the Marines during World War II, a drill sergeant handed him a weapon, saying, “Never point this rifle at anybody unless you are willing to pull the trigger.” He carried that lesson with him through life, and it informed his approach to diplomacy. “No empty threats,” he would often say.
We live in partisan times. A little bit of the Shultz way could help us meet our bigger challenges. Sometimes the other side has a good idea. If you never sit down and talk, you might never hear about it. Trust is the coin of the realm.
Mr. Cogan is author of “The High Cost of Good Intentions.” Mr. Taylor is a professor of economics at Stanford and co-author, with George P. Shultz, of “Choose Economic Freedom.” Both are senior fellows at the Hoover Institution.
+++
Salena and her human stories:
A Homeless man finds dignity and purpose facing death
By Salena Zito
CUMBERLAND, Maryland —Had it not been for the kindness of strangers, Henry McCain would have died the way he led much of his adult life: cold, alone, and without a blanket to cover his feet at night.
Click here for the full story.
++++
Perhaps one more myth about Trump being exploded?
Evidence Mounts that
Capitol Breach Was Pre-Planned, Eroding Incitement Allegation in Trump
Impeachment Trial
BY TOM OZIMEK (EPOCH TIMES)
As former President
Donald Trump’s Tuesday impeachment trial approaches, there is a growing body of
evidence in criminal complaints and affidavits that the Jan. 6 Capitol breach had been pre-planned, undercutting the
allegation leveled against Trump that he is guilty of “incitement to
insurrection.”
A number of FBI
affidavits filed in support of various charges—including
conspiracy—against accused participants in the Capitol breach show evidence of
pre-planning, reinforcing an argument made by critics of the impeachment trial
against Trump, namely that participants couldn’t have been incited by the
president to break into the building if they had earlier planned to do so.
Sen. Lindsey Graham (R-S.C.) said recently that parts of the Capitol incident had been coordinated well before Trump’s Jan. 6 speech. Trump’s accusers have described the speech as a call to storm the building.
While Trump said in his speech that “we fight like hell and if you don’t
fight like hell, you’re not going to have a country anymore,” the former
president appeared to be making a general reference to political activism, as
he called on supporters to “peacefully and patriotically” make their voices
heard during the Jan. 6 joint session of Congress.
Then-President Donald
Trump greets the crowd at the “Stop The Steal” rally in Washington on Jan. 6,
2021. (Tasos Katopodis/Getty Images)
Graham, in a Feb.
1 interview on Fox News, said, “There’s mounting evidence that the
people who came to Washington preplanned the attack before the president ever
spoke.”
“If you open up that can
of worms, we’ll want the FBI to come in and tell us about how people preplanned
this attack and what happened with the security footprint of the Capitol. You
open up Pandora’s box if you call one witness,” Graham added, in reference to
calls for witnesses to testify at Trump’s impeachment trial.
The former president’s
son Donald Trump Jr. argued in a tweet last
month, “If these federal
law enforcement agencies had prior knowledge that this was a planned attack
then POTUS didn’t incite anything.”
A review of some of the
affidavits in Capitol incursion cases shows evidence of pre-planning.
An affidavit (pdf) filed in the case against Thomas
Caldwell, who is believed to have a leadership in the Oath Keepers group and
who faces charges of conspiracy and conspiracy to impede or injure an officer,
alleges that Caldwell and others planned parts of the incursion in advance.
“As described more fully
herein, CALDWELL planned with DONOVAN CROWL, JESSICA WATKINS, and others known
and unknown, to forcibly storm the U.S. Capitol,” the affidavit states.
“Evidence uncovered in
the course of the investigation demonstrates that not only did CALDWELL, CROWL,
WATKINS, and others conspire to forcibly storm the U.S. Capitol on January 6,
2021—they communicated with one another in advance of the incursion and planned
their attack.”
Protesters at the Capitol in Washington on Jan.
6, 2021. (John Minchillo/AP Photo, File)
The document cites
communication between Watkins and other suspected Oath Keepers during the
Capitol incursion, noting that an individual whom the FBI believes to be
Watkins said: “We have a good group. We have about 30-40 of us. We are sticking
together and sticking to the plan.”
Charging documents (pdf) against Eric
Munchel and his mother, Lisa Eisenhart, both of whom face conspiracy
charges, cite a Jan. 10 article in The Times of London, in which Eisenhart
expressed that the two had gone into the Capitol as “observers” but quotes
Munchel’s characterization of the incursion as a “flexing of muscles.”
“We wanted to show that
we’re willing to rise up, band together and fight if necessary. Same as our
forefathers, who established this country in 1776,” Munchel told the outlet.
“It was a kind of flexing of muscles.
“The intentions of going
in were not to fight the police. The point of getting inside the building is to
show them that we can, and we will.”
+++++++++++++++
Biden's Press Secretary too thin skinned and not prepared to take the heat:
White House Press Secretary Gets HEATED After Reporter Asks THIS
She didn't like this question at all…
+++
Sent by my oldest daughter:
Yesterday I had lunch with three of my buddies and one told about a book he was reading. The subject was a conversation with a black person. When I got home I found the e -mail below from my daughter and I began to think about my increasing racial insensitivity. Then, last night on HBO there was a fabulous documentary about Black Artists and Bob Driskell, the great black artist and administrator at The University of Maryland. SCAD has a fabulous collection given the school by the noted Savannah collector and his wife, Dr. and Mrs. Walter Evans. GMOA, the State Art Museum located on the campus of The University of Ga., in Athens, and on whose board I sit, is the benefactor of another great black artist collection given by Professor and Mrs. Larry Thompson. Larry is a delightful person and his wife was the former Chair of our Board and is the current Chair of The famous Barnes Foundation in Philadelphia.
I will be the first to admit my empathy for black Americans has been impacted by a variety of events (rioting, shake downs, constant whining demands, crime, killings, anti-social behavior, organizations backed by Marxists and all the rest) so I began to reflect upon the genesis of my change. Having some personal knowledge with psychotherapy it dawned on me, from my perspective, America is witnessing the "bile period" of it's black citizens and it will have to play out. In other words, all the angst caused by their past history is coming out and until it takes it's course and black Americans feel comfortable with their prospects and lives, the consequences of their suffering will continue.
Black culture was never easy to mesh with western culture. The circumstances were vastly different and the demands on their livelihood were equally different. Now that blacks are coming into their own in our society these differences are creating some issues and backlash. I understand this. However, we should not lower our expectations and standards regarding civil behaviour in order to accommodate disruptive behaviour. We simply need to understand the why and wherefore and make reasonable allowances but also reject patronizing because that is demeaning. and emotionally unhealthy.
All citizens of this country are entitled to the benefits, opportunities and blessings inherent in our Bill of Rights. After that, every citizen must strive to be good citizens , must be judged accordingly and be held responsible for their actions. Blacks have made enormous contributions to our society and have done serious damage. Education and jobs are two crucial levers and this is predominantly where Democrats have failed blacks and blacks have failed themselves.
As readers of my memos know I mentor a wonderful young man who just completed his Master's Degree from Savannah State and we speak openly about our mutual feelings. I believe Antwone's future lies beyond the boundaries of Savannah and I am doing what I can to expose him to opportunities but , in the final analysis, it is his decision to make. Antwone has what it takes and he will be successful and already has proven to be a positive force in our community.
I am not saying I will necessarily alter my disdain for much of what I see happening but I am trying to understand the basis for my discontent since I firmly believe the divisions between America's races can destroy our republic if allowed to persist, fester and spread. I lay much of the blame at the feet of Obama who told us he was going to transform America and in the process violated our norms, radicalized many of our institutions and followed the dictates of the likes of Saul Alinsky. Obama, in my opinion, stained our nation in ways that are unbleachable and indelible.
The Democrat Party continues to match Obama both in nefarious deeds and counterproductive goals. Their current effort to re-impeach Trump, born out of hatred and mostly trumped up accusations, will forever be a permanent blight on their history which already includes a long period of flirting with and supporting anti-social behaviour and segregationist policies.
From my daughter:
|
|
I thought Schoen outperformed his partner but I do not understand why he held his head when he drank water. That act defined him and undid much of the rational arguments he made.
Dershowitz would have been one of my choice recommendations..
"Furious and beyond angry" - Trump reportedly unhappy with legal team | |
Headline: Trump ‘Furious And Beyond Angry’ Over How His Impeachment Defense Team Performed: Report What's Up: Following Tuesday's opening session of the second Trump impeachment trial, multiple news outlets began reporting Donald Trump was less than enthused with the performance of his new legal team. Quote: "'Two sources in fact, who spent time with the former president today described him as being quote, ‘furious and beyond angry’ with his impeachment defense team,' Fox News correspondent Kevin Corke reported." — DailyWire.com The First take: We usually don't like "anonymous sources." That said, it's not exactly a stretch of the imagination to believe former President Trump was displeased with the meandering opening presentation from his lead attorney Bruce Castor. After all, even conservative news channel Newsmax tuned out to ask attorney Alan Dershowitz to explain what was happening. (See the bonus story below.) | |
| |
Report: Dershowitz slams Trump's impeachment lawyer, "I have no idea what he's doing."And: A reasoned, and therefore, commendable argument: Trump's Senate Trial Rests on the
Claim that He Lied About Vote Fraud, He Didn't The opinions expressed
by columnists are their own and do not necessarily represent the views of
Townhall.com. Former-president Donald Trump’s
Senate trial for his January 6 speech “inciting” a riot at the US Capitol rests
on the claim that he lied about vote fraud in the November election. Put aside
that Trump asked “everyone here will soon be marching over to the Capitol
building to peacefully and patriotically, make your voices heard."
That he only wanted them to show their support for legislators who were
supporting him. That the assault on the Capitol's security lines started before Trump began speaking. While Trump’s questioning the integrity of the November
election “incited” violence, President Biden can liken Senators Ted Cruz and Josh Hawley to Nazi
Joseph Goebbels or numerous times falsely label his political opponents as racists,
but, of course, that isn’t inciting violence. Yet, despite the media continually labeling claims of any
election fraud or significant fraud as “false,” there is a lot of evidence of
significant vote fraud. What has been misleading are the claims that the courts
have examined this evidence. Courts have frequently rejected Republican challenges to the
2020 presidential vote because they want evidence that a case involves enough
fraud to alter the vote's outcome in a particular state. Republicans argue that
since their observers couldn't watch the vote count, they can't provide that
evidence and have asked for discovery. Still, while the courts have agreed that
irregularities have occurred, they weren't willing to grant discovery unless
Republicans first present enough evidence of fraud to overturn the election.
Republicans thus faced a kind of Catch 22. Concerns over fraud with absentee ballots is not something
limited to Republicans in the United States. Indeed, many European countries
have much stricter voting rules to prevent fraud. For example, 74% entirely ban absentee voting for
citizens who live in their country. Another 6% allow it, but have very
restrictive rules, such as limiting it to those in the military or are in a
hospital, and they require evidence for this. Another 15% allow absentee
ballots but require that one present a photo voter ID to acquire it. 35% of
European countries ban entirely absentee ballots for even those living outside
their country. The pattern is similar for developed countries. Given all the concerns about vote fraud with absentee
ballots, why did Democrats push to have absentee ballots counted without
verifying signatures? Why did Democrat counties go to such efforts to keep
observers from observing either the opening of absentee ballots or their
counting? In courts, such actions are allowed in as evidence and referred to as
evidence of a “guilty mind.” According to the Chair of the Georgia Republican Party,
David J. Shafer, "counting of ballots took place in secret after
Republican Party observers were dismissed because they were advised that the
tabulation center was shutting down for the night." In Pittsburgh,
observers were at least 15 to 20 feet away from the counting. At other times,
they were at least 100 feet away. As one poll-watcher in Pittsburgh notes,
observers had "no ability to watch anything." Similar problems arose
in other places such as Philadelphia, Detroit, and Milwaukee. Many other violations of rules occurred. For
example, in Pittsburgh and Philadelphia, voters with invalid mail-in/absentee
ballots received a notification and were allowed to correct that defect using a
provisional ballot on Election day. In contrast, election officials in
Republican-leaning counties followed election law more strictly and did not
give voters similar notifications with invalid mail-in/absentee ballots. A court case in Georgia Fulton County Superior Court brought
by State Republican Chairman David Shafer and President Donald Trump discovered hundreds of thousands of extra votes:
40,279 people who had moved counties without re-registering; 4,926 voters who
had registered in another state after they registered in Georgia; 305,701
people who, according to state records, applied for an absentee ballot past the
deadline; 66,247 under 17 years of age; and so on. In Madison and Milwaukee,
Wisconsin, 28,395 people allegedly voted without identification. Similar
problems existed in other Democratic-controlled counties. Again, it is important to remember that the courts never
looked at any of these problems and never granted discovery. Vote fraud can increase voter turnout rate. Increased fraud
can take many forms: higher rates of filling out absentee ballots for people
who hadn't voted, dead people voting, ineligible people voting, or even
increased payments to encourage legally registered people to vote. In recent research, I found that while heavily
Republican counties had a much higher turnout this election compared to 2016,
heavily Democrat counties generally didn't. The exception was in heavily
Democrat counties where vote fraud was alleged to occur. Even after also
accounting for county demographics, my estimates indicate 70,000 to 79,000
"excess" votes in Georgia and Pennsylvania. Adding in Arizona,
Michigan, Nevada, and Wisconsin, the total increases to up to 289,000 excess
votes. There was also strong evidence that voters in Allegheny
County, Pennsylvania, were allowed to correct defects in absentee ballots using
a provisional ballot on Election day – implying an additional 6,700 votes for
Biden. Other evidence points in the same direction but is not consistently
statistically significant. Suppose Biden and other Democrats really want to unify the
country and heal the wounds. They should avoid the political theater of
impeaching someone who is no longer president and offer to investigate whether
vote fraud occurred. They should have nothing to fear if they are right that
there is no evidence of fraud. +++++ |
No comments:
Post a Comment