++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++
We just returned from Orlando where we celebrated three birthdays and two anniversaries.
The first four pictures above were taken several weeks ago when Daniel and Tammy took Max and Stella to Universal Amusement Park. Max is named after my father's father and Stella is named after my mother.
All the other pictures were taken at a KOBE Restaurant near Maitland (north of Orlando) because the kids love celebrating events there. Max had never been and was excited to watch Chef Phillip toss the egg in his hat. The pictures of the four first cousins were taken after dinner.
+++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++
There are many things I do not understand and therefore being a racist because I am white, because I detest what the BLM Organization stands for, because I am perfectly happy to allow those with different views to express them, because I see no reason why I should feel guilty for what I never did , has become a badge which I readily wear with honor. MLK , as I have often noted, was one of my hero's. I know he too is considered a racist, by today's misguided standards, because he told everyone to judge a person by the content of their character and not by their color.
Perhaps the two matters that most confuse me is why so many black people seem to relish killing other black people and yet, I am a racist because I believe what Democrats and liberals have done by using a pandemic to deprive all America's children a needed and rigorous education is despicable and cannot be justified under any circumstance.
I also believe Herschel Walker can beat Warnock and hope he decides to run.. He is a sound man, a true conservative and role model. He has my vote:
https://townhall.com/tipsheet/
Also:
Consider signing up and joining another racist, Newt Gingrich, and participate in his Parler virtual meetings:
Join Newt's Inner Circle to Participate in the Next Virtual Meeting
Be part of Newt’s Inner Circle!
Newt's ideas are now expressed unfiltered on Parler, and he continues to post on Twitter and Facebook despite big tech censorship.
As Parler grows, we invite you to join Newt's Inner Circle. Use coupon code PARLER to save $10 on your Inner Circle membership. You will also get a free BONUS GIFT -- a limited edition Newt's Inner Circle Challenge Coin.
Join Newt live for his next virtual town hall meeting Tuesday, March 23, at 5:00 p.m. ET.
Sign up today to be part of this special event and receive a free BONUS GIFT.
The Gingrich 360 Team
Newt Gingrich Audio: Polling Data Show HR1 Should be Call “For the Corrupt Politician Act”
I've been looking at some polling data that John McLaughlin developed for Arizona. I’ve been reviewing the information related to the Harris-Biden-Pelosi-Schumer power grab bill, HR1. The findings in the data outline that we are shifting toward a conflict between the American people versus the corrupt Democrat politicians. For example, only 32 percent of Arizona voters say that they know that Nancy Pelosi and the national Democrats want to pass HR1, which includes a provision overriding the state's existing election law. Sixty-seven percent of people polled didn't even know the provision existed. The voters overwhelmingly disagree with it. So, I think when you go through this, you realize that with proper communication and education, people will realize that the so-called “For the People Act,” should be named the “For the Corrupt Politicians Act.” The Democrats are working desperately with of the news media to make sure details of their legislation remain hidden from the American people. I will keep reporting back, and we’ll discuss further in our regular virtual town hall meetings, which are becoming increasingly important as big tech continues to work against our ability communicate openly.
- Newt
Newt is concerned about Democrat legislation that eliminates America being governed by two party's. Therefore, he is not only a racist but also a true radical. How dare Newt accuse Democrats of a power grab. After all look what Democrats have done for our nation over the last few decades.
Newt Gingrich: Time to Get Tough on Iran
Our leaders must make clear that Americans are not going to bankroll and support the world’s leading funder of terrorism. We are not going to help pay for Iran’s missile and nuclear weapons programs. We are not going to condone hostility and hostage-taking throughout the Middle East. We are not going to stand by and allow our allies in the region to be threatened by a belligerent bully.
The aftermath of joint letters from both Democrats and
Republicans about U.S. strategy to deal with the nuclear threat may tell us
more about ongoing partisan division than anything else.
(March 11, 2021 / JNS) On its face, it seems like very good
news. A pair of gestures—a letter from members of the House of Representatives
and a resolution introduced in the chamber—aimed at restoring a vestige of
bipartisanship on the question of Iran and its quest for nuclear weapons. The
letter to U.S. Secretary of State Antony Blinken sought to transcend the bitter
argument from 2015 when President Barack Obama’s pact with Tehran was supported
by most Democrats and opposed by most Republicans. Instead of rehearsing the
stale arguments from that debate, it instead focused on the need for a
“comprehensive” agreement that would deal once and for all with the regime’s
ongoing nuclear program, as well as its missile-building and support for
terrorism, both of which were ignored by the Obama administration’s push for a
deal at any price.
The letter signed
by 70 Democrats and 70 Republicans urged that “restrictions on Iran’s nuclear
program must be extended until the regime conclusively demonstrates that it has
no interest in a nuclear-weapons program,” and said that “diplomacy with Iran
must limit not only the production of nuclear material but also ensure that
Iran cannot develop a nuclear-capable ballistic missile.” It also stated that
“Iran’s malign behavior throughout the Middle East must be addressed”—a
reference to its military adventures in Syria, Lebanon and Yemen, as well as
support for terrorist groups like Hezbollah and the Houthis.
The resolution,
also backed by moderate Democrats and some Republicans, condemned Iran’s
current efforts to enrich uranium to levels suitable for making a bomb and also
mentioned terrorism.
If these measures
represent a genuine consensus across both parties, it would mean a revival of
the spirit that animated Congress a decade ago when bipartisan majorities
passed tough sanctions against Iran. At that time, some of the fiercest critics
of the Obama administration’s interest in a rapprochement with Iran were
pro-Israel Democrats whose concern about the implications of the Islamist
regime acquiring a nuclear weapon was no less great than that of GOP members.
But over the course of
the next few years, Iran became a partisan football. Democrats blame that on
Republicans because of their fierce opposition to Obama’s policies, which
culminated in then-Speaker of the House John Boehner’s invitation to Israeli
Prime Minister Benjamin Netanyahu to address a joint meeting of Congress to
urge them to reject the nuclear agreement. That was treated by Democrats as an
intolerable insult to Obama. It enabled him to treat support for the pact as a
partisan litmus test that few Democrats dared to fail, even if it left the
Jewish state—and Arab states that were equally afraid of the administration’s
decision to enrich and empower Iran would endanger their security, too—on their
own against a genocidal regime.
But putting the blame
on Republicans for the collapse of the bipartisan consensus on Iran gets it
backwards. They were not the ones who changed their positions. It was
pro-Israel Democrats who flipped on the issue in order to bend to Obama’s will.
Since then, defending
Obama’s signature foreign-policy achievement has become a cardinal tenet of
Democratic thinking on the Middle East. Indeed, despite abundant evidence that
the nuclear deal emboldened Iran to continue its efforts to attain regional
hegemony and the end of sanctions helped it finance terrorism abroad, Democrats
continue to believe the line promoted by Obama’s “media echo chamber” that the
only choices available to the United States were appeasement or war.
President Donald Trump
pulled the United States out of the deal in May 2018 and reimposed sanctions on
Iran in order to force it to renegotiate a new agreement that would fix the
mistakes Obama made, especially the sunset clauses that would allow Tehran to
achieve a legal path to a weapon by the end of this decade. While Obama had
kicked the can down the road, Trump understood that some American president was
going to have to revisit the issue, and the sooner the better in order to
forestall the danger the deal’s shortcomings created. Democrats’ predictions of
Iran being able to build a bomb quickly or to unleash havoc on the world were
proved to be mistaken. Trump’s sanctions—he added news ones year after year as
part of a “maximum pressure” campaign—weakened Tehran and backed it into a
corner where it was going to have to negotiate on his terms. But Democrats
steadfastly refused to acknowledge their past mistakes or Trump’s
accomplishments. Like Obama, who inspired lockstep GOP opposition, Democrats
felt bound to oppose anything Trump did, even if the alternatives had been
proven wrong.
Now that both Obama
and Trump are gone, is it possible to reconstruct the consensus on Iran that
existed before the issue became so polarized?
Many of the key
players who were responsible for Obama’s appeasement are back in power. But
it’s possible to seize upon some statements made by President Joe Biden or
Blinken, and imagine that their approach will be less governed by illusions
about Iranian “moderates” or the advisability of treating the Tehran theocrats
as potential partners in a Middle East where American interests will not be
focused on alliances with Israel and moderate Arab states.
But it is premature to
jump to the conclusion that Biden and the Democrats are “on the same page” with
Republicans when it comes to deterring Iran.
Unfortunately, it’s
not just the fact that people like Robert
Malley and Wendy
Sherman are guiding American policy on Iran that fuels
skepticism about Biden’s intentions, though their presence in crucial
decision-making positions speaks volumes about what may happen. Rather, it’s
the first moves made by the administration as, with the urging of Western
European allies—who appear desperate to reverse Trump’s tough-minded
approach and get back to enabling rather than confronting Iran—that should give
us pause. Above all, the shocking acquiescence of the United States and its
allies to Iran’s curtailing
of inspections of its nuclear sites by the International Atomic
Energy Agency is a sign that we’re right back to the Obama-era practice of
letting the Iranians get away with murder in order to not alienate or to give
them an excuse not to negotiate.
At its heart, the
problem may go deeper than just the tendency of the foreign-policy
establishment veterans back in power to take a soft approach that values
diplomacy for its own sake. As analyst Lee Smith wrote in Tablet, the shift on
Iran among Democrats was not just a reaction to Netanyahu.
It was, instead, a
function of a shift among Democrats with respect to their feelings about
Israel. While anti-Israel sentiment is increasingly heard on that party’s
left-wing, the hope is that mainstream Democrats like Biden won’t accommodate
the activist base that regards the Jewish state and its supporters as embodying
the “white privilege” they despise.
But if Biden opts for
the same kind of weak bargain that his former boss treated as a triumph,
assumptions about his victory illustrating a move back to the center by
Democrats will be exposed as a myth.
For now, it may be
possible to pretend that these bipartisan gestures represent something more
than an attempt by moderate Democrats to raise money from pro-Israel donors.
But no one really believes those Democrats will oppose Biden if he follows in
Obama’s footsteps with another round of appeasement. Barring a remarkable shift
on Biden’s part, in which he will stop acting as if Iran is doing the West a
favor by talking about new negotiations to reinstate a pact that has already
failed, hopes for bipartisanship on the issue may be more fantasy than
political analysis.
Jonathan S. Tobin is editor in chief of JNS—Jewish News
Syndicate. Follow him on Twitter at: @jonathans_tobin.
+++++++++++++++++++++
How dare Mexico interfere with/comment on our stupidity:
Another one of my hero's:
No comments:
Post a Comment