36 years ago, Iran hostage release

Big flash from the past….

Thirty-five years ago, 52 Americans who were held hostage in Iran touched down at Stewart Airport

By Mid-Hudson News Network | 01/25/2016

[NEW WINDSOR] >> The eyes of the world were on the Hudson Valley 35 years ago, when 52 Americans who had been held hostage in Iran for 444 days returned to U.S. soil by landing at the former Air Force base at Stewart Airport.

On Jan. 25, 1981, five days after being released from captivity, the former hostages walked down the stairs that had been rolled up to the passenger jet, kneeled on the tarmac and kissed American ground for the first time since being taken hostage on Nov. 4, 1979, at the U.S. Embassy in Tehran.

They flew to Stewart from a U.S. Air Force base in West Germany, their first stop after leaving Iran.

More: http://www.dailyfreeman.com/general-news/20160125/thirty-five-years-ago-52-americans-who-were-held-hostage-in-iran-touched-down-at-stewart-airport

It does pay to remember.

2008: Obama campaign talks to Iran — and ghost of Ted Kennedy

Get ready for a short trip in the way-back machine to 2008.
Obama’s campaign had a series of communications with both Iran and Syria.

Obama Held Secret Talks With Iran, Syria Weeks Before Election

Malkah Fleisher, 02/02/09 | Arutz Sheva
U.S. President Barack Obama employed representatives to hold secret high-level talks with Iran and Syria months prior to his election as president.

United States President Barack Obama employed representatives and experts to hold secret high-level talks with Iran and Syria months prior to his election as president, organizers of the meetings told Agence France Presse on Monday.

Over the past few months, Obama campaign and election officials, as well as nuclear non-proliferation experts, had several “very, very high-level” contacts with Iranian leaders, according to Jeffrey Boutwell, executive director for the U.S. branch of the Pugwash group, a Nobel Prize-winning international organization of scientists. Former defense secretary William Perry, who served in Obama’s election campaign, also participated in some of the meetings, which included discussions on Iran’s nuclear program and the Arab-Israeli conflict. …/

Syrian President Bashar al-Assad affirmed the reports Monday that Obama officials had repeated contact with his country for some time prior to the U.S. elections. “Dialogue started some weeks ago in a serious manner through personalities who are close to the administration and who were dispatched by the administration,” Assad said. ../ Read more

So guess who was talking to Iran months before taking office? I don’t even want to get on the Iranian Valerie Jarrett off-ramp. No SNL skits, only a “thrill up the leg” to media.

Hearings, investigations, wire taps, outrage, Independent Counsel…. don’t be silly.

While we are in the way back machine, let us go a few decades back to 1983. Good ol’ lion of the Senate, Mary Jo Kopechne killer, Ted Kennedy made his grand invitation to the Soviet’s Communist Party, and Yuri Andropov, to come intervene in our election. A quid pro quo. Senator Kennedy was trying to challenge Reagan and needed an edge.

American Thinker

The Democrats are desperately diverting attention away from their rigging the nomination fight by charging that Russia is interfering in our election. But there was a time when going to Moscow to help defeat the other party didn’t seem to disturb Democrats. In fact, with the help of friendly media, the entire incident has been sent to the memory hole. Once upon a time it was revealed, but nobody outside of the conservative ghetto remembers.

So he promised Soviets wide access to the American media to make their case. But how would he assure Soviets of such unprecedented access? Well, Ted won’t be talking, nor anyone else either. Maybe we could ask his media friends? Investigations? FBI probe? Logan Act? Surely you jest.

Morning Joe suffers from (EMS)elite media syndrome

Joe Scarborough may be a media guy and household name, but he appears to have choked on some coffee beans on this one.

Line up, Joe, and take a crack at the central question of the year: try to explain the phenomenon of Trump’s candidacy and popularity? But 10 to 1 you get it wrong.
Washington Post April 26 (excerpts)

It is also about the humiliating defeat suffered by an increasingly isolated political and media class who still do not understand the causes and scope of Trump’s populist revolt. /

Time and again over the past year, Washington insiders and media moguls misread the mood of working-class voters and their attraction to the populist message championed by Trump./

So why did these “narrow elites” miss the mark so badly when the topic turned to Trump? Because most of them are hopelessly isolated from the other 300 million or so Americans who inconveniently share their country.

Read at: https://www.washingtonpost.com/blogs/post-partisan/wp/2016/04/26/trumps-sweep-is-another-humiliating-defeat-for-media-and-political-elites/

Seems Joe doesn’t know that much about the 300 million people either, or any more than the media elites he is criticizing do. What an egghead. The only part he got completely right is that media elite misread the mood of the people. Not that they care anyway.

Scarborough seems to delve into cliche explanations to make his case, never realizing how they undermined one another. He blames the media, moguls and concentrated elite, for not taking down Trump either earlier or at all. Well that is a stinging indictment of the media, of which he himself is a part. Right on, Joe. Then he blames Trump’s popularity as a celebrity for his political success. Talk about misreading.

He goes on to compare Donald’s TV stardom to Reagan’s popularity and success from his radio show. Then he drops this:

50 years later, that revolution is being undone by another TV star who has been underestimated by elites while being elevated by working-class voters.

So now Trump has single-handily undone the Reagan revolution as the complicit media watched. But Joe himself was a creature of the politics that got us to this stage, stomping on Reagan’s legacy. Now he blames Trump for undoing the Reagan revolution. Come on Joe, to hell with smelling the java, tell us what you’re smoking?

Joe thinks he’s the smartest guy in the room. Though there is a Yuge disconnect between both the media and establishment with the sediment of the people. So it’s no surprise how wrong they can be in diagnosing the mood of the people.

You cannot just blame Joe. He based it on the theory of a book. He just had to twist reality to make it fit. Does he not realize that, at this point with media’s credibility, the more they tried to take down Trump the more it failed? But try they did. You can’t blame them for not trying.(and it was not just media)

First of all. Trump won every county in those states. That’s called sweeping. But to have Joe write this off as some stupid popularity from a reality show is really disingenuous. Joe never impressed me as a political prophet.

Terrorism’s Russian connections

The Russian Roots of Terrorism

Cliff Kincaid — September 30, 2014 | Accuracy in Media

I learned about the passing of former Washington Times columnist John Lofton as I was looking through an old file of clippings and found a Lofton gem entitled, “Where terrorism is rooted,” from the July 5, 1985, issue of the paper. It’s a reminder of Lofton’s important style of writing and the fact that the Islamists we face today learned their style of warfare from the Soviets, who established the Palestine Liberation Organization (PLO) as “the fulcrum of the Soviet Union’s strategic approach” to world revolution, especially control of the Middle East.

At the time, President Reagan was battling the Soviet empire, including its support for international terrorist groups. Lofton reminded his readers of many facts about the Soviet-supported international terrorist networks. These facts are extremely relevant today.

Lofton quoted from Marx and Lenin, establishing the fact that the communists were advocates of terror from the beginning. He cited evidence of Soviet sponsorship and support of terrorist groups and personalities from the PLO, to “Carlos the Jackal,” to the Sandinistas in Nicaragua and the African National Congress in South Africa.

What Lofton was describing was a concrete example of how the communists and the Arabs and Muslims were collaborating in terrorism.

What we have learned since that time is that PLO chairman Yasser Arafat was actually a trained KGB operative. The case of Carlos the Jackal, the KGB-trained Marxist terrorist, is perhaps more significant. He converted to Islam.

http://www.aim.org/aim-column/the-russian-roots-of-terrorism/

The trail is pretty clear. This also indicates the complexities in identifying the terrorists’ true origination. And why Obama is at a complete failure to understand these groups. But then if he does know or understand the connections, in any way, then he is in denial and probably covering up the tentacles. He always hopes we don’t understand the truth.

Just plain wrong

A little comparison demonstrates how wrong the media’s perception has been.

They pegged Reagan a failure and they projected Obama a great success.

Obama invoked Reagan many times, but has yet to compare himself to Carter.

Here’s a multiple choice….

RightRing | Bullright

Reagan’s Executive Order 12606

A lesser known Executive Order from Reagan.
 

Executive Order 12606 — The Family

 

September 2, 1987

 

By the authority vested in me as President by the Constitution and laws of the United States of America, and in order to ensure that the autonomy and rights of the family are considered in the formulation and implementation of policies by Executive departments and agencies, it is hereby ordered as follows:
Section 1. Family Policymaking Criteria. In formulating and implementing policies and regulations that may have significant impact on family formation, maintenance, and general well-being, Executive departments and agencies shall, to the extent permitted by law, assess such measures in light of the following questions:
(a) Does this action by government strengthen or erode the stability of the family and, particularly, the marital commitment?
(b) Does this action strengthen or erode the authority and rights of parents in the education, nurture, and supervision of their children?
(c) Does this action help the family perform its functions, or does it substitute governmental activity for the function?
(d) Does this action by government increase or decrease family earnings? Do the proposed benefits of this action justify the impact on the family budget?
(e) Can this activity be carried out by a lower level of government or by the family itself?
(f) What message, intended or otherwise, does this program send to the public concerning the status of the family (g) What message does it send to young people concerning the relationship between their behavior, their personal responsibility, and the norms of our society?

Sec. 2. Governmentwide Family Policy Coordination and Review.

 (a) Executive departments and agencies shall identify proposed regulatory and statutory provisions that may have significant potential negative impact on the family well-being and provide adequate rationale on why such proposal should be submitted. The head of the department or agency, shall certify in writing that, to the extent permitted by law, such measure has been assessed in light of the criteria in Section 1 of this Order and how such measures will enhance family well-being. Such certification shall be transmitted to the Office of Management and Budget. Departments and agencies shall give careful consideration to family-related concerns and their impact in notices of proposed rulemaking and messages transmitting legislative proposals to the Congress.
(b) The Office of Management and Budget shall, to the extent permitted by law, take action to ensure that the policies of the Executive departments and agencies are applied in light of the criteria set forth in Section 1 of this Order.
(c) The Office of Policy Development shall assess existing and proposed policies and regulations that impact family well-being in light of the criteria established by Section 1 of this Order, provide evaluations on those measures that have significant potential impact on the family to the Office of Management and Budget, and advise the President on policy and regulatory actions that may be taken to strengthen the institutions of marriage and family in America.
 
Sec. 3. Report. The Office of Policy Development shall submit preliminary reports including specific recommendations to the Domestic Policy Council and shall submit a final report to the President no later than 180 days from the date of this Order. Each year thereafter, a report, including recommendations shall be submitted, through the Domestic Policy Council to the President.
Sec. 4. Judicial Review. This Order is intended to improve the internal management of the Executive branch and is not intended to create any right or benefit, substantive or procedural, enforceable at law by a party against the United States, its agencies, its officers, or any person.
 

Ronald Reagan

The White House,

September 2, 1987.

Obama’s call for an executive report on his “Muslim outreach” made me think of this order. There could not be a greater contrast between Reagan and Obama.

Same old socialism… different year

  

Sandy or Frankenstorm…. maybe a big storm but probably pales next to the one brewing in DC for Obama’s 2nd Occupation.

This election harckens back to Goldwater’s root ideas. The same mentality is in place with the left only on an even larger scale. Here was an article I had that was posted on Pepperhawk farm’s blog. It really is worth remembering how the left sees everything.

And it is interesting now, after the election, how the left defines what Obama’s reelection apparently means. He may have won but he doesn’t get to redefine and interpretate what it means to us. He outslicked a lot of people but behind it all they are still the same old stale Marxist ideas.

You know, the ones he really wouldn’t talk about. Instead he used words like “an economy built to last;  fair shot;  level playing field;  you didn’t build that; spread the wealth around.”
 
See article from earlier this year for some background

http://pepperhawkfarm.wordpress.com/2012/01/08/who-is-right-tea-parties-or-occupiers-by-privatebullright-contributor/

The road to serfdom is paved with Obama’s golden tongue, built on old ideas that enslaved people for years — not on good intentions. And no, Obama “didn’t build that” either. He didn’t build anything; he’s just marketing old ideas. He’s perfecting that, as they project the “old ideas” mantra onto their opponents.

“This whole thing is the biggest fairy tale I’ve ever seen.”
While they will be talking about his win and what it means, what is lost is the truth.

I saw a new book. A Catholic who was involved with the left decades ago, and came through research in economics to see ties between theology and free markets, in the affects on people.

Defending the free market: the moral case for a free economy

by (Fr) Rev. Robert Sirico

From the book preview: (Laissez Faire Club)

The Left has seized on our economic troubles as an excuse to “blame the rich guy” and paint a picture of capitalism and the free market as selfish, greedy, and cruel. Democrats in Congress and “Occupy” protesters across the country assert that the free market is not only unforgiving, it’s morally corrupt. According to President Obama and his allies, only by allowing the government to heavily control and regulate business and by redistributing the wealth can we ensure fairness and compassion.

Exactly the opposite is true, says Father Robert A. Sirico in his thought–provoking new book, Defending the Free Market: The Moral Case for a Free Economy. Father Sirico argues that a free economy actually promotes charity, selflessness, and kindness. And in Defending the Free Market, he shows why free-market capitalism is not only the best way to ensure individual success and national prosperity but is also the surest route to a moral and socially–just society.
(link to find book )

Rarely are you ever going to hear anything positive about the economy or markets from the left. They do make the argument for control for those reasons. This makes the “moral” case for the free market.

But I noticed, as Goldwater showed decades ago, that it is curious how the left despises economics yet bases so much of its politics on economics. (class warfare et al) And seems to seethe with resentment toward economics through their politics.

I almost want to label it all “political economics” (politiconomics) after hearing what Goldwater and others have to say about it, and on my own observations. I don’t know the accuracy of that term but it works for me. They despise it as a threat when it holds so many of the answers to the problems they claim to be concerned about. Though in reality their objective is control. The problem is not economics or the markets, but their need to control it.If Sirico makes the moral case for free markets, then what is liberals’ case for control?

I think we certainly need to hear the “moral case” for anything right now.

It is the same old socialism just dressed a little different, with a different spokesman. The same socialism ideas that brought us Reagan and his “A Rendezvous with Destiny” speech, or A Time for Choosing. He carried the torch. Reagan talked about the Shining City, but these days the beacon is growing dimmer not brighter. (and its not for lack of green energy)