Pearl Harbour Two!
===
Rubin cites 10 take away lessons learned from the Iran Deal. (See 1 and 1a below.)
I did not learn this but I had it re-inforced. Obama is a consummate, pathological liar.
A dear friend and fellow memo reader from the opposite end of the political perspective asked me to post this article : "Cameron, Hollande and Merkel: Why we support the Iran deal - The Washington Post."
Because: "Please share this with your readers so that they will have the benefit of both sides of this important issue."
I told him I would not because on this matter I remain obstinate, however, for those who want to believe these three are worthy leaders you are welcome to read about their reasoning.
Europeans, most particularly the French, have proven they would sell their mothers into slavery for Francs.
Europeans want to do business with Iran and simply give no thought to the immorality of funding a tyrannical regime.
Lamentably, most businessmen and politicians place commerce ahead of morality. Pearl Harbor proved that. The bombs dropped were made of American steel sold to them by American scrap dealers etc. Far too many merchants are generally willing to sell the rope with which they are ultimately hung.
On another topic I just received this from a very dear friend and fellow memo reader and was not aware:
"You, I am sure, caught the fact that Pagliano pulled the Fifth because he was paid by Hillary
more than 15% of his government salary and failed to disclose that on his taxes?"===
Oh you Progressive Demwits never learn! (See 2 below.)
===
North Korea's victory over Bill Clinton sets the tone for Iran's over Obama. (See 3 below.)
====
Dick
-----------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------
1)
Ten lessons from the Iran vote
In what is surely one of the most pathetic acts of political timidity in years, Senate Democrats — who had bitterly criticized many of the Iran nuclear deal points and had voted almost unanimously to take a vote — defeated cloture by a 58-42 margin. Had two Democrats acted responsibly rather than meekly complying with the White House edict, a vote on the merits would have been held.
This cannot obscure, however, that 58 senators including four nervy Democrats rejected the Iran deal as flawed and dangerous and adhered to their promise to speak for the American people. It is not clear if future cloture votes will take place. It is nevertheless important to witness the lengths to which Democrats will go to turn the gravest of national security issues into a game of partisan protection for a president who failed to get even a bare majority in Congress or in the country to approve his handiwork.
Ten take-aways are worth highlighting:
1. Despite the president’s bully pulpit, the anti-deal advocates were overwhelmingly successful in convincing the public and a super-majority in Congress that the deal is terrible. Whether anti-deal voters and groups still pack a political punch will be determined in future election cycles. As with Obamacare, this becomes a litmus test for voters, at least those who say they care about Israel.
2. The White House was forced to resort to an excuse that contradicted its own assurances. “No deal is better than a bad deal” become “This deal or war.” It reflected the White House’s intellectual exhaustion in trying to push a deal indefensible on its substance. Its anti-Semitic references to outside “money” and accusations that opponents were war mongers serve as an appropriate reminder that this president treats the Oval Office like a schoolyard bully.
3. Based on #1 and #2, the deal lacks political, legal and moral legitimacy. The next president is free to do as he pleases with regards to Iran. The 2016 election becomes a referendum on the deal.
4. Pro-Israel groups need to recognize the disagreeable reality: Most Democrats are Pro-Israel In Name Only. If pro-Israel voters want different results they must hold filibustering senators accountable. A more electoral-based strategy and donor discipline will be needed. The test for pro-Israel Democratic voters is whether they continue to cast ballots for candidates who undermine Israel’s security. One sign as to whether these groups are headed for extinction is whether they continue with the canard that support for Israel is bipartisan and welcome as genuine allies those who got the most important U.S.-Israel security issue ever dead wrong.
5. The MSM was surprisingly fair in reporting the multitudinous shortcomings and the president’s hyper-partisanship. Coverage was generally informed and helpful to inform voters and lawmakers.
6. One indication of the deal’s impact will be Iran’s regional behavior. As it continues to attack neighbors and support terrorists, the president and those filibustering Senate Democrats will shoulder the responsibility for having emboldened and enriched Iran rather than keeping America’s boot on the mullahs’ throats.
7. This issue will, one hopes, remind Republicans that they are electing a potential president, not a crass entertainer. I still find it unimaginable that a party could nominate someone unarguably unfit as commander in chief .
8. The president has failed to end wars in the Middle East. There is far more aggression, instability, terrorism and human suffering than when he entered office, in large part because he rejected America’s traditional leadership role. The prospect of a nuclear arms race looms, as do more proxy wars between Iran and our allies.
9. It was only because Senate Democrats behavior was so shabby that House Republicans did not get more scrutiny. The combination of a far-right, out of control clique and leadership unwilling to confront it continues to undermine the case for Republican governance.
10. Elections have consequences. When you vote for Obama you get an Iran deal. If one is horrified by the outcome here and by tragedies like Syria, one should rethink the criteria for selecting a president. Perhaps it is time to prioritize national security issues and not repeat 2008 and 2012 errors in 2016.
1a)
Iran No Confidence Vote
Obama is flouting the nuclear review act he signed in May.
The Senate held its first showdown vote on the Iranian nuclear deal Thursday, with 58 Senators having declared their opposition, including four Democrats and Republican non-hawks like Susan Collins of Maine and Rand Paul of Kentucky. The American public is also overwhelmingly opposed, with a Pew poll this week finding 21% approval for the agreement versus 49% disapproval.
So it says something about President Obama’s contempt for Congress that he browbeat and threatened 42 Democrats to filibuster the vote so he can duck having to veto a resolution of disapproval. The President may think he can spin 42 Senate votes into political vindication, and we’re sure he’ll get media support for that view. But Americans should read a filibuster as a tacit Democratic admission of no confidence in an agreement they fear voting on.
It’s also an abdication—and a betrayal. In May the Senate voted 98-1 for the Iran Nuclear Agreement Review Act, better known for sponsors Bob Corker (R., Tenn.) and Ben Cardin (D., Md.), and Mr. Obama signed it. Historically, significant foreign agreements have been submitted to Congress as treaties, requiring two-thirds approval in the Senate.
The Administration knew it could never meet that threshold, devised by the founders so that binding agreements with foreign powers would have broad and enduring public support. Instead, it wanted to make a deal with Iran as an executive agreement, ratified not by Congress but by the U.N.’s Security Council. But only Congress can fully lift the sanctions it imposed on Iran, so Mr. Obama was forced to make his grudging nod to the co-equal branch.
Now Mr. Obama is violating the law he signed, and Democrats are helping him do it. Corker-Cardin stipulates that the Administration must submit to Congress the full nuclear agreement, including any “side agreements, implementing materials, documents, and guidance, technical or other understandings, and any related agreements, whether entered into or implemented prior to the agreement or to be entered into or implemented in the future.”
The Administration ignored that requirement, allowing the International Atomic Energy Agency (IAEA) to reach secret agreements with Iran concerning the inspection protocols of suspected nuclear sites, and then failing to tell Congress about them. Only by chance this summer did Republican Senator Tom Cotton and his House colleague Mike Pompeo learn of the side deals through a conversation with an IAEA official.
The Administration would now like to hide behind the IAEA’s skirts, claiming it never even saw those deals and that all this is standard operating procedure. But IAEA protocols do not relieve the President from meeting his statutory obligations to Congress—or of the embarrassment of discovering, via the Associated Press, that the agency will let Iran inspect its own suspected nuclear site at Parchin.
In a recent Washington Post op-ed, Mr. Pompeo and constitutional litigator David Rivkin argue that Mr. Obama’s failure to submit the full agreement to Congress within the 60-day review period means Mr. Obama “remains unable lawfully to waive or lift statutory Iran-related sanctions.” They urge Congress to vote “to register their view that the president has not complied with his obligations under the act.”
With this lawsuit in mind, the House on Thursday voted along party lines to pass a resolution that Mr. Obama has failed to comply with the Nuclear Agreement Review Act. Republicans believe this vote will help in court if the House or some states decide to sue the President for lack of compliance.
We agree with them on the law, though whether a federal judge would enjoin the Treasury Department from lifting sanctions is far from clear. Our larger concern is that no Democrats joined House Republicans in the vote Thursday, even though many Democrats had previously announced their opposition to the deal. The GOP may muff a chance at a strong bipartisan vote of disapproval, and thus make it easier for other Democrats to duck responsibility for a deal they now own.
Still, the Administration’s bad faith here is a fresh reminder of why nobody in Washington trusts Mr. Obama, who is again proving his disdain for the rules of constitutional government. He is also setting a dangerous precedent. George H.W. Bush risked his presidency in 1991 by seeking support from a Democratic Congress for military action in the first Gulf War. His son did likewise with the Iraq War vote in 2002, and in both cases they got bipartisan backing. What will Democrats say when a future Republican President seeks to take America to war without consulting Congress, or with the support of 41 GOP Senators?
These columns have always favored wide latitude for Presidents of both parties on foreign policy. But a strong executive does not mean a lawless one. Nor is it a recommendation for future Presidents to treat a bipartisan majority in Congress with the disdain shown by this one. Mr. Obama may have the votes he needs to block a vote of overwhelming disapproval, but foreign policy legacies are flimsy when they’re built on parliamentary tricks.
-------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------
2)Problem Solved - McDonald's
--------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------Fifteen dollars an hour sounds great until one loses his/her job because a cheaper alternative is now viable. A part of McDonald's business plan is to provide h.s. and college students with employment while keeping costs down so they could provide a good product at a cheap price. Economics 101 should be a requirement for those boneheads in Washington.
Subject: : Problem Solved - McDonald'sMcDonald’s Announces Its Answer to $15 an Hour Minimum WageThis is exactly what the left pushed for.Fast food chains were never meant to be a place for someone to raise a family of 6.They were to be part time positions with some full-time advancements.Most fast food jobs were intended for school aged kids to learn how to be responsible,interact with people, and have a real job that offers a wage.The part time position was not intended as full time employment to support a family.McDonald’s recently came out with their answer to those that demand $15 per hr pay. Robots!Of course when this happens, like it did in Los Angeles, the unskilled workers will lose their jobs.This month in Europe, McDonald’s hired 7,000 touch screen cashiers.
3)
|
| The Iran nuclear deal is presented as an international agreement between the major powers and Iran. But the fact is that there are really only two parties to the agreement – President Barack Obama and his Democratic Party on the one hand, and the Iranian regime on the other. Over the past week or so, more and more Democrats have fallen into line behind Obama. At the same time, word is getting out about what Iran is doing now that it has its deal. Together, the actions of both sides have revealed the role the nuclear pact plays in each side’s overall strategies for success. On the Iranian side, last Wednesday the National Committee of Resistance of Iran revealed that North Korean nuclear experts are in Iran working with the Revolutionary Guards to help the Iranians prevent the UN’s nuclear inspectors from discovering the scope of their nuclear activities. The NCRI is the same opposition group that in 2003 exposed Iran’s until then secret uranium enrichment installation in Natanz and its heavy water plutonium facility in Arak. According to the report, the North Koreans “have expertise in ballistic missile and nuclear work areas, particularly in the field of warheads and missile guidance.” “Over the past two years the North Korean teams have been sharing their experiences and tactics necessary for preventing access to military nuclear sites,” NCRI added. Although, as The Washington Times reports, NCRI’s finding have yet to be verified, it is unwise to doubt them. North Korea has been assisting Iran’s nuclear program for nearly 20 years. The US began applying sanctions on North Korea for its ballistic missile proliferation activities in Iran 15 years ago. Iran’s Shahab and Ghadr ballistic missiles are modeled on North Korea’s Nodong missiles. The Syrian nuclear installation that Israel reportedly destroyed in 2007 was a duplicate of the Yangbyon heavy water reactor in North Korea. The Deir al-Zour reactor was reportedly built by North Korean nuclear personnel and paid for by Tehran. North Korea’s heavy involvement in Iran’s nuclear weapons program tells us everything we need to know about how Iran views the nuclear deal it signed with the Obama administration and its international partners. For the past 22 years, the North Koreans have been playing the US and the international community for fools. Ever since February 1993, when inspectors from the International Atomic Energy Agency first discovered that North Korea was conducting illicit nuclear activities, Pyongyang has been using its nuclear program to blackmail the US. The pattern repeats itself with maddening regularity. First, the US discovers that North Korea is engaging in illicit nuclear activities. Over the years, these activities have gone from illicit development of plutonium-based nuclear bombs to expelling UN inspectors, to testing long-range ballistic missiles, to threatening nuclear war, to testing nuclear bombs and threatening to supply the bomb to terrorist groups. Second, the US announces it is applying sanctions to North Korean entities. Third, North Korea responds with more threats. The sides then agree to sit down and negotiate the scaling back of North Korea’s nuclear activities. In exchange for Pyongyang’s agreement to talk, the US provides the hermit slave state with whatever it demands. US concessions run the gamut from sanctions relief, to cash payments, provision of fuel, assistance in developing “peaceful” nuclear sites at which the North Koreans expand their nuclear expertise, removal of North Korea from the State Department’s list of state sponsors of terrorism, the provision of formal US commitments not to use force to block North Korea’s nuclear progress, to more cash payments and sanctions relief. The North then formally agrees to scale back its nuclear program and everyone is happy. Until the next time it is caught cheating and proliferating. And then the cycle starts again. In each go around, the US expresses surprise at the scope of North Korea’s illicit nuclear and missile activities. In every cycle, US intelligence failed to discover what North Korea was doing until after the missiles and bombs were tested and UN inspectors were thrown out of the country. Despite North Korean brinksmanship and ballistic missile warhead development, the US prohibits its ally South Korea from developing its own nuclear deterrent or even taking steps in that direction. For their part, while negotiating with the Americans, the North Koreans have proliferated their nuclear technologies and ballistic missiles to Iran, Syria, Pakistan and Libya. Given North Korea’s clear strategy of using nuclear blackmail to develop its nuclear arsenal and maintain the regime’s grip on power, you don’t need to be a master spy to understand what the presence of North Korean experts in Teheran tells us about Iran’s strategy for nuclear empowerment. The ayatollahs will ride their nuclear pact with the Great Satan all the way to a nuclear arsenal and regional hegemony, repeating the cycles of brinksmanship, extortion, respite and brinksmanship that they learned from their North Korean teachers. Given how well the strategy has worked for the psychotic North Koreans who have no economy, no allies and no proxies, it is clear that Iran, with its gas and oil deposits, imperial aspirations, terrorist proxies and educated population believes that this is the strategy that will launch it to world-power status. This then brings us to the Democrats. Depending on their pro-Israel protestations, the Democratic position in support of the deal ranges from optimism to pessimistic minimalism. On the side of the optimists, we have the Obama administration. Obama, Secretary of State John Kerry and their advisors insist that the deal is fantastic. It blocks Iran’s path to the bomb. It opens the possibility of Iran becoming a positive actor on the world stage. On the other end of the Democratic spectrum are the pessimists like New Jersey Senator Cory Booker and Congresswoman Debbie Wasserman-Schultz. As they see it, the deal is horrible. It empowers and enriches Iran and legitimizes its nuclear program. But still, they claim, the deal keeps Iran’s nuclear ambitions at bay for a few years by forcing Iran to submit to the much touted UN inspections regime. So it is a good deal and they will vote in favor of it and then vote to sustain a presidential veto of a congressional decision to oppose it. Obviously, the presence of North Korean nuclear experts in Tehran makes a mockery of the notion that Iran has any intention of exercising good faith with UN inspectors. But that isn’t the point. The point is that the Democrats have no intention of doing anything to prevent Iran from becoming a nuclear power. They just don’t want to be blamed for Iran becoming a nuclear power. They want the Republicans to shoulder the blame. The purpose of the deal from their perspective to set the Republicans up to be blamed. Obama and his Democratic followers insist that if Iran doesn’t act in good faith, the US will reimpose sanctions. Worse comes to worst, they insist, the US can just walk away from the deal. This of course is utter nonsense. Obama won’t walk away from his signature foreign policy. He will devote his energies in his remaining time in office to covering up for Iran. That is why he is breaking the law he signed and refusing to hand over the side deals regarding the farcical nature of UN inspections of Iran’s nuclear sites to Congress. Moreover, after insisting that the deal is the best way to prevent a holocaust or that it is the only way a Jewish mother can protect the homeland of her people, Democratic lawmakers are not going to rush to acknowledge that they are lying. Now that they’ve signed onto the deal, they own it. Of course, the Iranians are another story. While the Democrats will not abandon the deal no matter what, the Iranians signed the deal in order to abandon it the minute it outlives its usefulness. And that works just fine for the Democrats. The Democrats know that the Iranians will use any step the Republicans take to try to enforce the deal’s verification regime or condition sanctions relief on Iranian abidance by the deal’s restrictions on its nuclear activities as an excuse to walk away from the deal. They also know the Iranians will remain in the deal as long as it is useful to them. Since the Iranians intend to hide their nuclear activities, the Democrats assume Tehran will stay in until it is financially and militarily ready to escalate its nuclear activities. The Democrats believe that timetable will extend well beyond the lifespan of the Obama administration. Whenever the Iranians leave, they can be depended on to blame US for their decision to vacate their signature. And the Democrats in turn will blame the Republicans for pushing the Iranians over the edge. You have to give credit to the administration and its Iranian chums. At least they are consistent. They have constructed an agreement that gives them both what they care about most. Iran, as always, wants to dominate the region and develop the means to destroy Israel and its Arab adversaries at will. The administration, as always, wants to blame the Republicans. Israel and the Arabs understand the game that is being played. It is time for the Republicans to get wise to it. ----------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------- | ||
No comments:
Post a Comment