Boehner is actually surprised

Who’d have thunk…but he shouldn’t be shocked.

To the latest utterance from Boehner that he is surprised by “‘the boldness of the Iranians’ in exerting their influence”, Alan Keyes takes him to task on his ignorance.

Willfully or not, John Boehner studiously ignored the background and implications of Obama’s coherent, consistent “foreign policy”. (I hedge that phrase to suggest its use in a different sense, one that refers to policies dictated by goals and allegiances foreign to America’s principles and hostile to our material and moral good.) Sadly, I am not surprised to find that Mr. Boehner’s belated recognition of “the boldness of the Iranians” is not accompanied by an honest acknowledgment of the boldness of Obama’s treasonous betrayals of the constitutional self-government of the American people. — Dr Alan Keyes

Read more at http://barbwire.com/2015/04/08/1000-boehners-surprise-is-just-incredible/

It is worth a read, though it is no surprise Keyes has been calling for an impeachment-of-last-resort for Obama. Of course the current realities and laws of probability of that happening, or Boehner bringing it up in his quest for normalcy, are at about zero. The main reason being it is not politically palatable. But I wonder how politically palatable it is to be surprised by Iran’s bold actions or statements? (see Casablanca) Is Boehner living in some alternative reality?

In the event of impeachment, all the dastardly deeds of Obama and his administration would spill out and flood the public conscience. Boehner can’t have that. In his brain, it would not be good for politics either. So basically whatever Obama cares to do, and whatever he brings upon the country, he knows he has carte blanche for whatever he wants. The wicked irony is that all options are on the table in Obama’s scheming world. But Boehner must accept some accountability for those results.

Please note: impeachment has been taken off the table due to lack of public demand.

Obama tells shrink his personal feelings

Not exactly, but it was along those lines that he laid out his concerns and problems.

Obama claims he is hurt by these comments that his administration is anti-Israel. Oh, our negative talk about Obama and his policies is the problem. His feelings are hurt.

We already know that “death to America” and “death to Israel” chants don’t bother him. But we the people talking about his anti-Israel policy hurts him. Wow, so the truth actually does hurt? (obviously not enough)

But then he was also hurt…no pissed off when Bibi came here to make a speech at Congress. The petulant manchild has some awfully strange phobias as it turn out.

I guess he skipped the whole Biblical principle that those who bless Israel will be blessed and those who curse it will be cursed. Maybe if he began to break out with boils and lesions, he would start to get the message. Then again…

Israelis may be “hurt” by his administration calling Netanyahu chicken-__. Nah.

    “It has been personally difficult for me to hear, sort of expressions that somehow we don’t have…that this administration has not done everything it could…uh, to look out for Israel’s interests.” Obama told the New York Times in an interview, with a grinnish smirk on his face.

His personal difficulties are now, on record, embedded in the political narrative as being a victim of comments that he is anti-Israel. Whoa to those personal difficulties.

Yet he goes to another Easter prayer breakfast to complain once again about Christians. Just after an earth-shattering agreement with the theocratic “death to America” Iran, he lectures us on Christianity. Another prayer breakfast, another attack.

Obama: I’m Concerned by ‘Less Than Loving’ Comments From Christians

Fred Lucas — | The Blaze

President Barack Obama on Tuesday used the White House Easter prayer breakfast to accuse some Christians of lacking love, then said he was “pulling back” from saying any more.

“On Easter, I do reflect that as a Christian, I am supposed to love,” Obama said. “I have to say that sometimes, when I listen to less than loving expressions by Christians, I get concerned. But that’s a topic for another day.”

Some in the audience applauded, and laughed.

More: http://www.theblaze.com/stories/2015/04/07/obama-im-concerned-by-less-than-loving-comments-from-christians/

No doubt about that, it will be a “topic” on another day, too, at opportune times.

We never hear any of his sharp critiques aimed at Muslims and Islam, or in his festivities in Ramadan etc. No, he goes out of his way to shed the best possible light on Islam and fellow Muslims, living out their faith.

Obama’s Christian-bashing is akin to Pontius Pilate lecturing the disciples on the finer points of their Christian faith. So, if the Christians he is referring to would only be more agreeable to him(and his thinking), there would be no problem. Obama was not practicing his divisive organizing talent on Iran. Instead, he goes back to using Christians and Christianity for a whipping post.

All this Christian persecution everywhere but he’s hurt by our “anti-Israel” comments, of the “less than loving” Christians?

Buchanan unchained and off the rails

Buchanan demonstrates the fallacy of academia’s thinking. Iran is not as bad as you think, while Israel is a danger to diplomacy. Not to over simplify it.

So the elite intellectuals know better than everyone else. What could go wrong? Well, his book is probably hundreds of pages more of the same cliff notes displayed here.

Here’s a good report on the back and forth at Newsmax.

Wacky world of Obama: emphasis is ‘the bomb’

Thomas Sowell has once again boiled the Iran problem down to logical terms. But logic is not on the list of ingredients in Obama’s left. Politics is the dominant one.

The most catastrophic decision in human history?

Thomas Sowell sees Obama-Iran agreement ‘betting the lives of millions of Americans’
WND

Recent statements from United Nations officials, that Iran is already blocking their existing efforts to keep track of what is going on in their nuclear program, should tell anyone who does not already know it that any agreement with Iran will be utterly worthless in practice. It doesn’t matter what the terms of the agreement are, if Iran can cheat.

It is amazing – indeed, staggering – that so few Americans are talking about what it would mean for the world’s biggest sponsor of international terrorism, Iran, to have nuclear bombs, and to be developing intercontinental missiles that can deliver them far beyond the Middle East. […/]

Read more at http://www.wnd.com/2015/03/the-most-catastrophic-decision-in-human-history/

My working theory seems to coincide with Sowell’s. It is fairly simple, since with Obama he always wants plausible deniability on any of his failures. It is simply that, while called an agreement or “deal,” it is something else to Obama. It is foremost an illusion. Even he knows it — not that he believes it is any great achievement. (if he does, then flag him at the WH bar.) No, its an illusion or replacement for a real agreement. Something that is practically worthless yet he can hail as an agreement.

In the reality of it, he has created future deniability for the inevitable problem of a nuclear Iran. Just as Clinton says we really tried to get bin Laden. The failure doesn’t matter if spun as a great attempt. Obama is using a similar strategy. All that matters is what he says about it later. So the here-and-now present doesn’t matter, it will be how he frames it after that counts. That is his philosophy. Of course, the world and reality does not function on great attempts or excuses. Chamberlain’s ‘peace in our time.’ What counts are results.

Not in Obama’s world. All the emphasis is placed on the attempt. Emphasis is the key or the bomb. More and more, perception seems to be all that matters to the left. And when the people disapprove of the product, then our perception is faulty. (the border, illegal immigration, scandals, IRS, Benghazi, spending, Obamacare, Islamic terrorism, ISIS, Israel, Mid East policy)

They say we must wait for a deal before criticizing the parts. When Pelosi said we have to pass it before we know what is in it, she wasn’t whistling Dixie. They have to know how it ends, too, so they can spin it into a masterpiece. By the time you know exactly what is in the bad deal — and possibly will not know everything — they’ll have refashioned it into a diplomatic achievement, even if the result is wrong. It will be historic even if its a failure. Nuclear physics, meet Obama philosophy.

Obama’s containment paradigm

Remember the gaffe by then Secretary Hagel when he slipped:

“I misspoke and said I supported the president’s position on containment. If I said that, I meant to say we don’t have a position on containment,” Hagel said. – Politico

Guess what? Obama’s policy on Iran is containment. But at least he was against it before he was doing it. But it left Hagel confused, who must have saw at the onset that the Obama policy was containment. So Obamafiles had to come out to formerly deny it, saying they were against containment. Oh, we do know how Obama’s administration works. Aka “Listen to and report what we say but pay no attention to what we are really doing.” (don’t bother yourself about that)

Wa Po December 9, 2011

“As recent events underscore the growing Iranian nuclear threat, the Obama administration appears to be pivoting toward a policy of containment. The emphasis of its rhetoric has shifted from preventing an “unacceptable” nuclear Iran to “isolating” it. …/

The administration’s alternative to prevention — isolation — implies containment. But a nuclear Iran could not be contained as the Soviet Union was. Containment requires credibility, a resource United States will have drained if, after numerous warnings to the contrary, we permit Tehran to cross the nuclear threshold. And no matter how isolated, a nuclear Iran is likely to spark a destabilizing cascade of proliferation. Despite its own isolation, North Korea shares its nuclear technology. Iran might, too.”

It is one thing to have and support its containment policy but another to just lie about them. Leaving Iran steps, maybe only months, from its objective is a containment policy.

In fact, this administration went to lengths to put Iran in that on-the-verge position. It first stitched enrichment into the policy — something they didn’t have before. They strive to set arbitrary enrichment levels. Who does that help? Then they have the difficulty with inspections which there seems to be no answer for. But no, they tell us, it is not a policy of containment.

To AIPAC in 21012, Obama said:

Iran’s leaders should understand that I do not have a policy of containment; I have a policy to prevent Iran from obtaining a nuclear weapon. (Applause.)

March 5, 2012 Obama said: (while calling the US and Israel bond unbreakable)

“And as I emphasized, even as we will continue on the diplomatic front, we will continue to tighten pressure when it comes to sanctions, I reserve all options, and my policy here is not going to be one of containment. My policy is prevention of Iran obtaining nuclear weapons.

And as I indicated yesterday in my speech, when I say all options are at the table, I mean it.”

All options are on the table until they aren’t.

To the Atlantic, he told Jeffrey Goldberg:

Dismissing a strategy of “containment,” the president tells me it’s “unacceptable” for the Islamic Republic to have a nuclear weapon. …/

…”he seemed most frustrated when talking about what he sees as a deliberate campaign by Republicans to convince American Jews that he is anti-Israel. “Every single commitment I have made to the state of Israel and its security, I have kept,” he told me. “Why is it that despite me never failing to support Israel on every single problem that they’ve had over the last three years, that there are still questions about that?

Though he struck a consistently pro-Israel posture during the interview, Obama went to great lengths to caution Israel that a premature strike might inadvertently help Iran: “At a time when there is not a lot of sympathy for Iran and its only real ally, [Syria,] is on the ropes, do we want a distraction in which suddenly Iran can portray itself as a victim?”

He always manages to turn the Iran problem into a problem of Israel’s desires or potential actions. Why does that appear more of a threat to him than the possibility of a nuclear Iran? Now some two years later, it seems to be a replay of all that he said before…except that the elephant in the room is containment, as the policy of choice.

Obama seems the only one unwilling to call the duck what it is. But then he also cannot call ISIS what it is either.The river of denial runs straight through the White House. The guy who’s only major doctrine is “don’t do stupid stuff” apparently doesn’t see containment, or waffling on Iran policy, stupid stuff.

This is his “if you like your plan you can keep your plan, period.” It is his there is “not a smidgen of corruption” in the IRS. This is his “transparent administration.” This is his version of not wanting even the appearance of meddling in Israel’s election. But this is just the Mid East version of it.

Speak up, if you are a Leftocrat or theocrat ruler

First we had Ahmadinejad come to speak at Columbia University. That went over well, if you were a Leftist academic that is. They seemed to enjoy that. They hailed it as a great day for freedom of speech.

“It should never be thought that merely to listen to ideas we deplore in any way implies our endorsement of those ideas…

It is a critical premise of freedom of speech that we do not honor the dishonorable when we open the public forum to their voices. To hold otherwise would make vigorous debate impossible.”– Lee C. Bollinger

Then along came Netanyahu speaking at Congress and the Left booed & hissed about that. Pelosi turned her back to Bibi. Congress writes a letter to Tehran telling them how our system works, so the Left cried foul again and Obama’s White House called it unhelpful meddling. Some called it treasonous. What right did Congress have to do that?

Ali Khamenei writes a letter to our youth back in January that the Left made no fuss over. Two months later, Obama gives an oration to the people of Iran. I’m sure the Left has no criticism for it either. (not a Cairo Speech but they’ll take whatever Obama shovels out) Since Obama’s favorite audience is young people, we know his Tehran tribute was mainly aimed at young people in Iran.

Obama would do well to talk to the leaders in the country that rule with an iron hand. But now he opts for a conversation with young people, even though he ignored them years ago in their uprising. At this point the Iranians are trying to figure out if this is live or just a very delayed response to their earlier pleas. Maybe since Ali Khamenei took the time to write such a thoughtful, inspiring letter to our youth Obama felt inclined to reciprocate?

So we do seem to have this back and forth. But it is only ‘not helpful’ when anyone on the right speaks out. Funny how the subject of his speech was “speaking out” about the “future”. Why that seems to only apply to Liberals, I don’t know? If you are a conservative, “shut up, you have no right to speak on/to that”. If you are a diehard Leftist, your voice is always welcomed even needed. It’s called a double standard, something the left loves. (call it the Hillary or Obama standard)

With all Liberal “dialogue,” as they call it, it never matters if any good comes of it. It is speech. If it is from the Right or conservatives, “hold your horses.” It is wrong-based and wrong-headed. As Heiress in waiting, no doubt Hillary has her watchful eye on this back and forth. In fact, we know because she lampooned Republicans for sending their letter in her speech. That came spontaneously, not like the Keystone Pipeline or anything — not even a Hard Choice. That her response came while she was also trying to explain her Servergate fiasco was purely coincidental. (wink)

    Hillary: Republicans were either trying to help the Iranians or hurt President Barack Obama. (Maureen Dowd replied to Hillary with an open letter of her own.)

This freedom of speech is very tricky, even hazardous. I hope maybe Obama can issue one of his necessary Executive edicts to clarify it. That would be ever so helpful.

Letter from Tehran….with love or not

Many people probably were unaware of this attempt at a letter from Iran. The ones who did see it may not have wanted to publicize it. I have mixed feelings about that but to those who understand and know, it should be read. So I include the words here in its entirety. (as wordy as it is – a few passages highlighted for emphasis)

In the name of God, the Beneficent the Merciful
To the Youth in Europe and North America, (from Seyyed Ali Khamenei)
The recent events in France and similar ones in some other Western countries have convinced me to directly talk to you about them. I am addressing you, [the youth], not because I overlook your parents, rather it is because the future of your nations and countries will be in your hands; and also I find that the sense of quest for truth is more vigorous and attentive in your hearts.
I don’t address your politicians and statesmen either in this writing because I believe that they have consciously separated the route of politics from the path of righteousness and truth.
I would like to talk to you about Islam, particularly the image that is presented to you as Islam. Many attempts have been made over the past two decades, almost since the disintegration of the Soviet Union, to place this great religion in the seat of a horrifying enemy. The provocation of a feeling of horror and hatred and its utilization has unfortunately a long record in the political history of the West.
Here, I don’t want to deal with the different phobias with which the Western nations have thus far been indoctrinated. A cursory review of recent critical studies of history would bring home to you the fact that the Western governments’ insincere and hypocritical treatment of other nations and cultures has been censured in new historiographies.
The histories of the United States and Europe are ashamed of slavery, embarrassed by the colonial period and chagrined at the oppression of people of color and non-Christians. Your researchers and historians are deeply ashamed of the bloodsheds wrought in the name of religion between the Catholics and Protestants or in the name of nationality and ethnicity during the First and Second World Wars. This approach is admirable.
By mentioning a fraction of this long list, I don’t want to reproach history; rather I would like you to ask your intellectuals as to why the public conscience in the West awakens and comes to its senses after a delay of several decades or centuries. Why should the revision of collective conscience apply to the distant past and not to the current problems? Why is it that attempts are made to prevent public awareness regarding an important issue such as the treatment of Islamic culture and thought?
You know well that humiliation and spreading hatred and illusionary fear of the “other” have been the common base of all those oppressive profiteers. Now, I would like you to ask yourself why the old policy of spreading “phobia” and hatred has targeted Islam and Muslims with an unprecedented intensity. Why does the power structure in the world want Islamic thought to be marginalized and remain latent? What concepts and values in Islam disturb the programs of the super powers and what interests are safeguarded in the shadow of distorting the image of Islam? Hence, my first request is: Study and research the incentives behind this widespread tarnishing of the image of Islam.
My second request is that in reaction to the flood of prejudgments and disinformation campaigns, try to gain a direct and firsthand knowledge of this religion. The right logic requires that you understand the nature and essence of what they are frightening you about and want you to keep away from.
I don’t insist that you accept my reading or any other reading of Islam. What I want to say is: Don’t allow this dynamic and effective reality in today’s world to be introduced to you through resentments and prejudices. Don’t allow them to hypocritically introduce their own recruited terrorists as representatives of Islam.
Receive knowledge of Islam from its primary and original sources. Gain information about Islam through the Qur’an and the life of its great Prophet. I would like to ask you whether you have directly read the Qur’an of the Muslims. Have you studied the teachings of the Prophet of Islam and his humane, ethical doctrines? Have you ever received the message of Islam from any sources other than the media?
Have you ever asked yourself how and on the basis of which values has Islam established the greatest scientific and intellectual civilization of the world and raised the most distinguished scientists and intellectuals throughout several centuries?
I would like you not to allow the derogatory and offensive image-buildings to create an emotional gulf between you and the reality, taking away the possibility of an impartial judgment from you. Today, the communication media have removed the geographical borders. Hence, don’t allow them to besiege you within fabricated and mental borders.
Although no one can individually fill the created gaps, each one of you can construct a bridge of thought and fairness over the gaps to illuminate yourself and your surrounding environment. While this preplanned challenge between Islam and you, the youth, is undesirable, it can raise new questions in your curious and inquiring minds. Attempts to find answers to these questions will provide you with an appropriate opportunity to discover new truths.
Therefore, don’t miss the opportunity to gain proper, correct and unbiased understanding of Islam so that hopefully, due to your sense of responsibility toward the truth, future generations would write the history of this current interaction between Islam and the West with a clearer conscience and lesser resentment.
Seyyed Ali Khamenei
21st Jan. 2015

As I said, it is something of a sight. Yet the same guy now complains about Congress addressing a letter to him? Go figure. Note he is talking to the kids. The thing that got me is the amount of people out there pimping this letter for him. I don’t think there is any valuable information in it. Though it does offer some insight into what we are dealing with.

If he really wanted to express non-bias he could start closer to home — without having to worry about the rest of the world and its children. (i.e. indoctrinating their children)

And if he cared about youth, he would be improving lives of the youth in Iran via jobs, the economy, opportunity, and freedoms of course. The people spoke in elections on those things. But he ignores the plight of people right in his own country.

Since everything in Iran has to do with Islam, one way or another, it does not seem to be making a great promotion for Islam. Rather it is making a negative statement, all by itself, about Islam and its culture. It is not the West doing that. Surely it does not go beyond notice that their terrorism tentacles are widespread throughout the region. Its treatment of women, or its hostages, does not speak well for Islam.

Speak up and forever hold the peace

Obama said in a message to the Iranian people:

    “We have to speak up for the future we seek”

What a bunch of nonsense, which is typical of Obamaspeak. Then he usually gets praised for excellent delivery. Too bad he couldn’t hear any applause from Tehran.

Straw man alert:

“The days and weeks ahead will be critical. Our negotiations have made progress, but gaps remain. And there are people, in both our countries and beyond, who oppose a diplomatic resolution. My message to you—the people of Iran—is that, together, we have to speak up for the future we seek.”

Who are all these people who are against a “diplomatic resolution”? People are opposed to failure. They are opposed to something that doesn’t work. They are opposed to giving away the store. They are opposed to a policy of containment that won’t work But they are not opposed to a diplomatic resolution. But what diplomatic resolution would not include congress? Diplomacy? And they are not opposed to a deal. As long as it is one that works.

But of course he is talking about “diplomacy” with a theocracy and dictatorship waiting for the Mahdi or 12th Imam. An ideology whose duty is to usher in and speed that age through violent jihad and terrorism.

BTW: Can anyone point out the difference between what Russia(Putin) is doing and what Iran is doing? It is the same thing different regions. Russia has invaded Ukraine on the auspices that they were invited there to stabilize it. Iran invaded Iraq under the guise of pushing back ISIS and calming things down. Both have ulterior motives. Both insist it was invited in as a good neighbor. Each believes it is justified in its expansionist motives.

Furthermore, what do the Iranian people have to do or say about the nuclear program? Right, it’s a democratic nuclear program. Petitions, phone calls, and letters to follow.

It’s Springtime in Iran. “Peace in our time.” Watch and listen to this video.

Neville Chamberlain 1938, after Munich Conference: “I believe it is “peace for our time.””

So people wrongly oppose a diplomatic resolution?

Obama blaming Bush for ISIS

Again Obama comes out to tell us the source of ISIS. Of course, it’s George Bush — could there be any other? That’s all anyone needs to know, right? And the ruse goes on.

Mr Obama said: “Two things: one is, Isis is a direct outgrowth of al-Qaeda in Iraq that grew out of our invasion. Which is an example of unintended consequences. Which is why we should generally aim before we shoot.

“We’ve got a 60 country coalition. We will slowly push back Isis out of Iraq”, he continued, adding: “I’m confident that will happen.”–Independent UK

ISIS was not a dot on the horizon when Bush was president, but it is his fault. More subtly, Obama actually blames America’s actions, foreign policy, and leadership (except for him) for the formation and evil of the Islamic State. By extension, those who elected Bush.

Obama is no different than Sen Chris Murphy who suggests the US is the cause of ISIS.
Even though he claimed he wasn’t blaming us for causing ISIS.

So the guy who cannot even mention the driving force behind this evil and the Islamic State, except by the Islamic acronym ISIL, can be taken seriously to define the original cause of “ISIL”? No, he isn’t kidding and neither am I. Does that make any sense?

The “underlying problem of disaffected Sunnis” is a fundamental issue in Iraq.
Wait, is he referencing some religious “sect” difference? No, that cannot be right!

Lets review:

  • Isis rose to significance under Obama
  • Isis grew organizationally and exponentially under Obama
  • ISIS invaded Iraq, and extended to Libya and Africa under Obama
  • He referred to them as the JV team.
  • They are driven and centered on Islam which he will not acknowledge.
  • They are armed with US equipment they got after we Obama pulled us out of Iraq — in a victory lap.
  • George Bush was no where in sight when ISIS spread into Iraq.
  • ISIS spawned when we got out of Iraq not when we went to Iraq.
  • Iran enters and deploys troops in Iraq under Obama. (delayed reaction from Bush)

Now lets consider his “aim before we shoot” philosophy:

  • Obama’s defiant support for Muslim Brotherhood in Egypt.
  • Obama’s unilateral adventure in Libya. (and his victory lap thereafter)
  • Look at the shape of Libya, ISIS ties, condition and terrorism there now.
  • Obama’s red line in Syria, getting bailed out by Vladamir Putin.
  • Obama’s cozy relationship with Castro
  • Obama inviting Iran into Syria. (it must have been Bush’s idea.)
  • A deal with Iran at any cost.
  • A policy of containment in Iran (even though they said it wasn’t)
  • A knee jerk reaction to boycott Netanyahu’s speech.
  • Obama’s campaign staff delving into Israel’s national election
  • Obama’s A team meddling in Canada’s election
  • Obama’s official promotion of gay marriage at State Dep as a priority.
  • Obama’s amnesty outreach to South America
  • Threatening border agents not to enforce the law.

We only have to look at the World, and Middle East in particular, to see all the fruits of unintended consequences Obama’s policies have wrought, including in the US. But we also suffer intended consequences of his policies. Egypt, Ukraine and Israel know those well.

He also telegraphed a message to young people that “you should be thinking about climate change, the economy, war and peace.” Yep, they should be talking and thinking “Climate Change” and climatology, since you know everything is related to climate change — except for what Bush caused!

How can any free person on this earth take anything this man said seriously? Kids this is why we Americans should not elect radicals — or faith-based candidates — to the Oval Office. It just isn’t a good idea.

Got that? Think about melting glacier ice, not ISIS cannibalizing the Mid East and Africa. Never mind either his stuck-in-the-mud policy of supporting the Muslim Brotherhood.

RightRing | Bullright

Persia 2.0: the sequel

When Ralph Peters talks, people ought to listen. Or as the old Soviet defectors used to say, get the bananas out of their ears. He framed the coming Iran as years in the making.

The Iranian dream of a reborn Persian Empire

By Ralph Peters — February 1, 2015 | NY Post

The sight of vast graves opening and the undead clawing out should unnerve us all. But we haven’t even noticed. As more blood flows than any horror film offers, it’s brought the hope of eternal life to bygone empires we all thought dead and buried — and good riddance.

Blinded by the flash of headline events, we fail to see the strategic arcs of our era: the agonized collapse of Europe’s empires — climaxing in the Soviet Union’s demise — and now, amid the chaos and fanaticism, the belief on the part of once-mighty powers that they can rebuild fallen empires.

History is vengeful toward the ignorant. And we’re historically illiterate.

A Turkish attempt to establish a neo-Ottoman Empire failed (none of their neighbors wanted the Turks back), but three other imperia have gotten at least one foot out of the grave: the Persian Empire, the Arab Caliphate and the Russian Empire.

Not one means us well.

More at NY Post

I guess the jingle of “The Iranians are coming” doesn’t have a good ring to it. We are sure headed in the direction of Tehran, ‘as Tehran goes…’ Our illustrious jive-masters in Washington think no one will notice. The old adage is: change, if done correctly, can hardly be noticed. Well, many of us notice but what is anyone doing about it?

Bibi gives a speech mentioning the hijacked territory under Iranian control but the indoctrinated masses said his “political speech” struck a sour chord. While Iran punctuates every sentence with theocratic politics all the time. What do we do? Make concessions. It seems some of that Persian pride has infiltrated and infected Washington. Is it terminal?

As Peters said, “History is vengeful toward the ignorant. And we’re historically illiterate.”

Hillary ushers in Clinton 3.0

Once again, liberals are in a position they’ve grown to dislike: they have to defend the Clintons. While she has positioned herself to run for president, Hillary has an albatross hanging over her.

To the Clintons, this may seem like a great rally cry to round everyone up behind her. But it is a task liberals would rather not have. It’s bad enough they have to defend the Clinton’s entire record anyway but to intentionally give them something else which they must defend her on, against the vast right-wing conspiracy, is an added job on top pf it all.

Remember in the Clinton years she lectured the press telling them the big story media should care to talk and write about is the one about the vast right-wing conspiracy victimizing the Clintons. She scolded them to do that with righteous ambition, which would suit their fancy just fine. They did.

Now again she issues the call to arms after committing an intentional offense while in office — offending even progressives. And she expects that since they have grown used to the job, are experienced at it — and since she is a woman of historic potential — that it will be all the easier for them to jump to her defense. Well, they really have no choice with all the marbles on her — just how she wants it. Let the talking points begin.

Hillary and Iran, two peas in a pod

Hillary’s email problem has a parallel with the Iran negotiations. Both are more matters of illusion than substance. Clinton defenders lecture us not to criticize her emails because we don’t know what is in them. That’s the Dems favorite shell game. With Iran, they say you don’t know what the deal is so you cannot criticize it. They say we must see the deal or emails before passing judgement.(and they aren’t anxious for us to see either)

So, in other words, Hilllary’s email content will determine if she did anything wrong? Both parties have about zero credibility. Where Iran operates on religious motivations, Hillary operates on political ones.

Yet this is the tack the Democrats are taking with Hillary. Wait and see, never mind that she is already outside any ethics or the law itself. Never mind she negotiated 4 months to turn over what she did. Iran negotiations were extended at least twice and they still refuse to allow inspectors full access. We won’t get to see Hillary’s server either.

In both cases the obfuscation is obvious. In both we’re told to withhold judgement and that they are in compliance so far. Hillary was not compliant when she set the whole thing up. She will point to Colinn Powell, Jeb Bush, and Chris Christie. Iran will point to ISIS as the big problem. Neither is to be trusted by any rational thinking person. (Democrats are irrational) Both claim to be in compliance with all the rules that they did nothing wrong, and have no ulterior motives. Right.

Both “require the willing suspension of disbelief.”

RightRing | Bullright

Obama’s distraction, classic projection

Obama called Netanyahu’s speech a distraction.

Daily Caller reported:

“Your administration has described Prime Minister Netanyahu’s plans to address to Congress on Iran tomorrow as ‘destructive,’” Mason told Obama. “What damage has really been done?”

“I don’t think it’s permanently destructive,” Obama replied. “I think that it is a distraction from what should be our focus. Our focus should be how do we stop Iran from getting a nuclear weapon.”

Wait, Netanyahu’s focus is stopping Iran from getting a nuclear weapon. That is the chief objective. Obama’s focus, however, is….well, take your pick

But Obama did take the opportunity before the speech to preemptively attack Bibi:

“Netanyahu made all sorts of claims. This was going to be a terrible deal. … None of that has come true.”

And Obama has made all kinds of claims like about Obamacare, lies. At least now the world knows who they don’t trust. So why should anyone listen to Obama?

On the day Bibi delivered a joint session speech, Obama rolled out his new initiative. As Valerie Jarrett explained to MSNBC, his new program is Let Girls Learn. I’m sure there was absolutely no other day he could have rolled that out.(Biden was abroad lol) And he calls Netanyahu’s timing politically suspicious?

USA Today: “President Obama and first lady Michelle Obama will announce the “Let Girls Learn” initiative Tuesday afternoon at the White House.”

Obama did take time to come out to criticize his speech as nothing new.

NBC: “On the core issue, which is how do we prevent Iran from obtaining a nuclear weapon which would make it far more dangerous … the prime minister didn’t offer any viable alternatives,” Obama said.

Solomon had a famous saying too, “nothing new under the sun.” This is a man, Obama, who when running for office in 08, gave his great speech in Berlin, Germany and I don’t remember anyone yelling that “he is running for election, gasp!”

He started the Berlin speech with a phony disclaimer.

I come to Berlin as so many of my countrymen have come before. Tonight, I speak to you not as a candidate for President, but as a citizen – a proud citizen of the United States, and a fellow citizen of the world.

What average “citizen of the world” would have the venue to give a speech? But Obama has a problem with someone in office, as one of our closest allies, coming to give a speech while still running for reelection? A distraction?

Please don’t Judas me

Speaker Boehner made a weekly press release tied to the “destructive” comments from Obama’s adviser, the notorious Susan Rice.

“The president’s national security advisor says it’s destructive for the prime minister of Israel to address the United States Congress. I couldn’t disagree more,” Boehner said.

“The American people and both parties in Congress have always stood with Israel and nothing, and no one, could get in the way.” – Jerusalem Post

Well, that is no One but Obama and until now! Nothing but nothing will get in Obama’s way of talking with Iran though — even if it is destructive to everything else, and all other relationships. They are almost possessed by that.

Several Democrats have said they will skip the speech. Some said, like Obama, that it is inappropriate for Netanyahu to address the US Congress just two weeks before Israeli elections. Others said they do not want a foreign leader weighing in on US foreign affairs. – More> Jerusalem Post

Rice decries politics of Bibi’s visit

You can file this under ‘you have got to be kidding me’. Sure enough, with Susan Rice that seems to be her theme.


(Rice interview with Charlie Rose)

Well, it is the Dems who have spun this up into a political frenzy. But of course having so many Dems working behind the scenes for Netanyahu’s ouster doesn’t help their case.

Now they have a formal boycott in effect. They are politicizing the entire event. Even Biden says he will be away, unable to attend. (he’s traveling with a broad… er traveling abroad)

Rice: “We want the relationship between the United States and Israel to be unquestionably strong, immutable, regardless of political seasons in either country, regardless of which party may be in charge in either country. We’ve worked very hard to have that, and we will work very hard to maintain that.”

Worked very hard at that? She’s probably still peddling the video cause for Benghazi.

Does Susan Rice have any credibility on anything? Dems have played politics with Israel, and its security, for six years now. To say that the relationship has always been apolitical means she doesn’t understand the administration. Of course she understands, she just said that like their other lies and utterances which conflict with reality.

[on Iran] “They have enabled us to validate that they have, in fact, taken all the steps that they committed to take and that they’re in full compliance. That model will need to be sustained in any comprehensive agreement.”

Depends what they are in compliance with, doesn’t it? Validated! The irony is we have an administration and president that cannot be trusted any more than Iran, but who demands trust in making a nuclear deal with Iran. That’s specious logic. Sustained, really?

Dems in nuclear meltdown over Bibi. Now there’s a “comprehensive” disagreement.

Rice plays the Gong Show, loses

Susan Rice delivered a strategy speech to Brookings Institution. In it she said:

But, too often, what’s missing here in Washington is a sense of perspective. Yes, there’s a lot going on. Still, while the dangers we face may be more numerous and varied, they are not of the existential nature we confronted during World War II or the Cold War.

We can’t afford to be buffeted by alarmism and an instantaneous news cycle. We must continue to do the hard work of leading a complex and rapidly evolving world, of seizing opportunities, and of winning the future for our children.

Perspective? Well it is not D-Day, yet anyway. No, this is the Titanic. Captain O and his advisers are telling the band “keep on playing, just a little louder”.

On Iran she said: “We must give diplomacy a chance to finish the job.”

How many chances has diplomacy had? Obama himself has extended it what 3 times? Again, a parallel to the Titanic. Give those life preservers a chance if you really must. But relax and stop the alarmism.

BBC

In a letter outlining the strategy, Mr Obama said the US would “always defend our interests and uphold our commitments to allies and partners”.

“But we have to make hard choices among many competing priorities and we must always resist the overreach that comes when we make decisions based upon fear.”

I rest my Titanic analogy case. ‘Let’s not act too rashly, more music please, louder. Have some faith in the concept. Louder.‘ Our national defense and security is overreach?

After all her statements, there are people fighting to Gong her. She certainly has a record in divisive denial, like Benghazi.

Strong and sustained American leadership remains essential, as ever. Think for a minute where the world would be today without decisive U.S. leadership.

Yea, just think.

We will always act to defend our country and its people, but we aim to avoid sending many thousands of ground forces into combat in hostile lands.

So Obama wants Congress to draft and pass a new authorization for Obama on Iraq, which should state no ground troops. Does that sound ridiculous for a necessary authorization?

We are committed to fighting terrorism and stopping the spread of nuclear weapons, even as we rally the world to meet the threats of tomorrow

“We are committed” even as we cannot deny Iran nuclear capability. But follow what we say, not what we do. “Louder music, please!”

WH connections to Israeli election

When John Boehner invited Netanhahu to speak to Congress it stirred a flurry of criticism from the Left and the White House. How dare he, and without asking the Prez’s permission even?! It’s against protocol.

The excuse and reasons from the White House are usually as bad as their actions. So too with this. Obama does not want to meet with Bibi while here. They claim it is because it is an election season in Israel and they make a habit not to give even an appearance of interfering with elections.

This too gets very hairy when the truth comes out. I knew they had no love for Netanyahu, and they would not want to lend more credence to him or his electability. Assuming, as I will, that is a major reason they will not not deal with him when he comes.

Even that is worse and more erroneous. The hypocrisy just never ends with this crew of ideologues and miscreants. It turns out that Obama’s campaign gurus are actually working hard to oust Netanyahu. Oh, that’s rich at the same time they are claiming they don’t even want to give the appearance of meddling in Israeli politics. See

I knew they did not want to lend any legitimacy to Netanyahu’s leadership. But this is even more chutzpah than most people imagined. Though I can’t be surprised by anything they do. When Obama says things like all options are on the table, it is important to understand what that means, namely to him and his cohorts.

But then anyone should realize whenever Obama says something is a matter of “principle” — or law or Constitution — it is a complete ruse. (EO on Immigration)

Couple that with the intermingling of Obama operatives in Canada’s electoral process. That was highlighted in an excellent post by Blessed B at Nox and Friends.(article) Sure they are out to support opposition to leaders they don’t like. It’s clear.

Now what is also clear is that not only is their excuse about meeting with Bibi a ruse, but meddling in other countries’ politics is their forte. It’s a righteous liberal crusade to them. They pride themselves on politics. It’s like the Mafia, it is their thing. Remember the Arab Spring and Egypt, supporting the Muslim Brotherhood. There was the then Senator Obama campaigning in Africa for Raila Odinga.(which he denied)

So when they trot out that excuse of not giving the appearance of meddling in elections, know what that really means. I.e. Obama standing on a principle that doesn’t exist.

Dang that appearance

Ynet news: “As a matter of longstanding practice and principle, we do not see heads of state or candidates in close proximity to their elections, so as to avoid the appearance of influencing a democratic election in a foreign country,” National Security Council spokeswoman Bernadette Meehan said.

Yet having other leaders come to the White House and go to lobby Congress, even on national security matters, is perfectly acceptable to them. “Get over it!”

Can Obama restrain himself from casting a vote of influence? The question going forward: is his legacy and future applying his influence on elections?

During the midterms he tried to avoid having a negative impact on Democrats. And they didn’t want him around. Bad enough the ghost of Obama was everywhere. But then he made a pronouncement that all his policies or issues were very much on the ballot — right there between the lines — despite his ballot absence. He just couldn’t resist.

We saw how hard it was for him to stay out of the election process. He can’t. Is it just a sign of what’s to come: The Obama-Jarrett Roadshow? He just has special animosity for Netanyahu, Israel. Principle and Obama are not compatible.

RightRing | Bullright

Iran, money talks?

U.S. to Award Iran $11.9 Billion Through End of Nuke Talks

Another $490 million released on Tuesday under deal
Adam Kredo – January 21, 2015 | Washington Free Beacon

The Obama administration on Wednesday paid $490 million in cash assets to Iran and will have released a total of $11.9 billion to the Islamic Republic by the time nuclear talks are scheduled to end in June, according to figures provided by the State Department.

More: http://freebeacon.com/national-security/u-s-to-award-iran-11-9-billion-through-end-of-nuke-talks/

Obama parsing on Iran “deal”

Holding their fire does not mean holding Obama’s feet to the fire.

Obama to Congress: ‘Hold your fire’ on Iran sanctions

Kevin Liptak, CNN
Fri January 16, 2015

“My main message to Congress at this point is just hold your fire. Nobody around the world least of all the Iranians doubt my ability to get additional sanctions pass if these negotiations fail,” Obama added later.

On Iran, Obama turned a question on whether he’d veto additional sanctions on Iran back on his counterparts in Congress — including those in his own party.

“Why is it that we would have to take actions that would jeopardize the possibility of getting a nuclear deal over the next 60 or 90 days?” Obama asked.

Obama added later: “I am not, repeat not, suggesting that we are on immediate war footing should negotiations with Iran fail.”

More: http://www.cnn.com/2015/01/16/politics/cameron-obama-press-conference/

 

Go to the tape: (bold my emphasis)

I HAVE ALWAYS SAID THAT THE CHANCES THAT WE CAN ACTUALLY GET A DIPLOMATIC DEAL [are] PROBABLY LESS THAN 50/50.

THE QUESTION I HAVE FOR MEMBERS OF CONGRESS, INCLUDING THOSE FOLKS IN MY OWN PARTY, IS WHY IS IT THAT WE WOULD HAVE TO TAKE ACTIONS THAT MIGHT JEOPARDIZE THE POSSIBILITY OF GETTING A DEAL OVER THE NEXT 60 TO 90 DAYS?

Let “might jeapordize the possibility of getting a deal” sink in.

The construction of an argument, Obama style:

I CAN TELL YOU WHAT THE RISKS ARE. I THINK DAVID SHARES MY ASSESSMENT HERE. UNDER THE INTERIM DEAL THAT BROUGHT IRAN TO THE TABLE, WE WERE NOT SUPPOSED TO INITIATE NEW SANCTIONS. NOW YOU WILL HEAR ARGUMENTS: “THESE TECHNICALLY AREN’T NEW SANCTIONS, THEY ARE SIMPLY LAWS PUTTING IN PLACE THE POSSIBILITY OF ADDITIONAL SANCTIONS”. — I ASSURE YOU THAT IS NOT HOW IRAN OR OUR PARTNERS WOULD INTERPRET IT. THE LIKELIHOOD OF THE ENTIRE NEGOTIATIONS COLLAPSE IS VERY HIGH. IF THAT HAPPENS, THERE IS NO CONSTRAINTS ON IRAN GOING BACK AND DOING WHAT THEY CAME TO DO BEFORE THEY CAME TO THE TABLE — DEVELOPING A HEAVY WATER REACTOR THAT ONCE BUILT [IS] EXTRAORDINARILY DIFFICULT TO DISMANTLE, AND VERY DIFFICULT TO HIT MILITARILY.

So the original deal was to take future sanctions off the table (“all options on the table”?) just to get the ball rolling. But even that wasn’t bad enough, he and Kerry have been dismantling the ‘old’ sanctions. Now he protests the sanctions Congress has in mind.

The question is why would anyone ban more sanctions, let alone remove current ones, before getting any kind of deal? He said taking “new sanctions” off the table was the means to getting them to the table in the first place.

Then he keeps referring to the chance of undermining the “possibility” of a deal. So everything is based on a “possibility” Obama admits is less than a 50/50 chance. Is anyone making the odds on that? But long odds equal appeasement in Obama’s brain.

If the likelihood is not very good, why take anything off the table to start? What did you get for your concession? The same shoddy possibility of getting a deal. But in Iran’s mind it is another concession, more time along with enrichment ability. We get the same “chance”. Keeping score? He also takes credit for Congress’s original sanctions.

It’s a spiraling spider web. Rather than explanations he makes excuses. Tehran was probably sitting there watching saying, “just what we thought all along, and it sounds even better in a White House press conference.”

THAT’S NOT THE ONLY OPTIONS THAT WILL BE AVAILABLE. I HAVE CONSISTENTLY SAID WE LEAVE ALL OPTIONS ON THE TABLE. CONGRESS SHOULD BE AWARE THAT IF THIS DIPLOMATIC SOLUTION FAILS, THE RISKS AND LIKELIHOOD THAT THIS ENDS UP BEING A MILITARY CONFRONTATION IS HEIGHTENED. CONGRESS WILL HAVE TO OWN THAT AS WELL.

Because, either way, he is setting it up so Congress is on the hook for the failure that ensues. The golden rule is never take any responsibility for failures.

ref: http://www.c-span.org/video/?323842-1/news-conference-president-obama-british-prime-minister-david-cameron

RightRing | Bullright

Ayers in chronic denial

First there was Bill Ayers and his Weather Underground domestic terrorism. Then there was Kent State, then there was the rise of Islamic terrorism, then there was the Boston Bombers. (an abbreviated list to be sure) But now we have Bill Ayers doing Iran, some form of terrorist diplomacy known only to Iran and Ayers.

But what he said was not in code. It was very clear. Brietbart

“…he proclaimed that the United States is a “terrorist nation” that is the “greatest purveyor of violence on earth… and the foremost threat to world peace.”

I mention it because he used similar rhetoric in 2013 at the Kent State anniversary. The Daily Caller reported:

Ayers reportedly said that the United States is the most violent country that has ever been created.

Ohio.com: Ayers said the task is “….to be astonished at both the beauty of the world and the unnecessary suffering we visit on the world. And then to act.”

At Kent State, he somehow managed to deny the moral equivalence of what he and his group did with jihad terrorists like Boston Bombers. Again, reasoning known only in his mind that he’s a righteous hero, while they aren’t? He’s an “activist” but Jihadists are just… terrorists.

In an interview with Megyn Kelly, he said he cannot say he would not rise up again in a “very militant and serious way” against the US. So there you have it. But we should not confuse what he and his cohorts did with standard terrorism. I’m sure his cushy pension via academia allows him the freedom to make such proper distinctions.

The Blaze: Kelly later pressed Ayers on one of the more controversial statements he’s made since becoming an academic. He is quoted as saying, “I can’t quite imagine putting a bomb in a building today— all of that seems so distinctly part of then. But I can’t quite imagine entirely dismissing the possibility, either.”

Ayers confirmed that he can’t say for sure that he would never again rise up against the “violent” United States in a “very militant and serious way.” However, he said at 70 years old such a prospect is unlikely. Still, he made it clear he, like his wife, is not “committed” to an ideology of “nonviolence.”

Apparently, at 70, Ayers is not up to the physical demands of terrorism. I bet he and the Iranians would have much to discus about human rights, civil rights agendas et al.

The central deciding factor in Ayers’ mind appears to be the ‘motive’ — his vs theirs. If so, then I bet Islamic terrorists would disagree that their 1400 year-old religious grievances are not quite up to those righteous standards.

RightRing | Bullright

Oil illusions and/or delusions – pt 2

(Part 2)
What is interesting is that for years we heard the Mid East production level adjustments, such as OPEC’s or Saudis’, had little to do with the price we were paying for refined goods. When we complained in general about high oil prices, we were told their decisions and production had really no effect on overall prices. We are always reminded that supply and demand are driving those prices. It’s the hidden hand of the economy.

But now we have a situation where Saudis are actively flooding the market with their oil to drive oil prices down, which makes it hard for others to do business. So are they now admitting Saudis’ production control has an effect on prices? Yes, they are. Flashback to all those times we were told it was only consumer demand, no foul. We were imagining things. Remember, they said the free market was setting those prices. Which is it?

Apparently, someone woke them up and told them the power they have over oil prices. Who let that out of the bag? Do you think it took them all these years to realize it? And took our domestic fracking ability and development to show them? Anyway, now they know the dirty little secret and are using it against us to curb our ability to produce.

Here is a newer article examining the issue that Saudis are at war with our domestic production. He compares this reaction to the subprime bubble, and presumably meltdown, as the perfect analogy.

As soon as oil’s price headed in the undesired direction in this highly leveraged market, the dreams evaporated, just as they did in the highly leveraged housing market. The debt of the most indebted producers, now losing money, is worth less than face value. Their creditors will eventually recognize losses. As previously noted, the one wrinkle is that so many producers are governments. They have not, in most cases, explicitly backed their debt with oil revenues, but they had assumed those revenues and based their future spending plans on them. Call it “soft” debt. — Robert Gore; straightlinelogic

Long ago I figured if Saudis’ had real fear about Iran, they could put pressure on the market and oil prices, which Iran is dependent on. This would have the effect of sanctions. Maybe this is what they did, or maybe they are only reacting to us? If we listen to these economists, Saudis are responding namely to us.

I admit having a bias that I prefer to buy gas below 3.00 to paying about 4.00 per/gallon. (or at 2.00) At 4.00 per/gallon, the fracking is more profitable. So am I supposed to be happy knowing they are producing and growing, and just pay 4 dollars and shut up?

I realize how much high prices affect the whole economy. So that works in favor of my bias for lower prices. Am I to say: our economy is sputtering and people can’t afford the high costs… but at least we are producing more oil, thank goodness? I’m not there yet.

On the other hand, should I worry prices will decline so far the market will collapse to where no drilling is profitable? Well, I already heard one person put it this way: ‘you have to produce something before it is consumed.’ IOW, oil must be profitable to be produced, so we can consume it — in all its forms. If it is not, we will not have it available.

But in that case, prices would go up due to lacking supply, per supply and demand.

Here is an interesting article about the scoreboard

Biggest Winners and Losers of International Oil Price Crash

By Isaac Arnsdorf Dec 4, 2014 | Bloomberg

Oil prices around the world have fallen more than 38 percent since the year’s high in June.

Among the winners are airlines, which are saving on fuel and not reducing fares for customers. Bank of America Corp. predicts earnings will gain 73 percent in 2015.

Saudi Arabia flexed its muscle at November’s OPEC meeting by overruling other members, showing that it’s still the dominant producer. The desert kingdom needs oil at $83.60 a barrel to balance its budget, according to the International Monetary Fund, but it’s got $736 billion in reserves.

Apollo Global Management LLC, the New York buyout firm run by billionaire Leon Black, announced the sale of shale driller Athlon Energy Inc. on Sept. 29 — before oil dropped 29 percent.

More on Bloomberg

See the list of winners and losers. Saudis need 83.60 and currently it is below that, though they have substantial revenues.(they should) Iran needs 117. And we know that OPEC members cheat on quotas anyway. They probably want to sell what they can even at a lower price. But I don’t see articles about the negative effects to them.

I know it’s a complex issue. Yes, lower prices are hurting the producers, like fracking and development. It is in Saudis interest that we decrease our production.I understand the price declines are undermining fracking. Hey, there’s an angle for the enviro-gurus. They should favor lower prices. Though judging market effects as either good or bad is tougher. And motives can be almost as hard.

[My past article]

RightRing | Bullright