Charles Krauthammer has been keeping a watchful eye on John Kerry’s “negotiations” with Iran, calling what has come out of it, a “sucker’s deal.”.
A president desperate to change the subject and a secretary of state desperate to make a name for himself are reportedly on the verge of an “interim” nuclear agreement with Iran. France called it a “sucker’s deal.” France was being charitable.
The only reason Iran has come to the table after a decade of contemptuous stonewalling is that economic sanctions have cut so deeply — Iran’s currency has collapsed, inflation is rampant — that the regime fears a threat to its very survival.Nothing else could move it to negotiate. Regime survival is the only thing the mullahs value above nuclear weapons. And yet precisely at the point of maximum leverage, President Obama is offering relief in a deal that is absurdly asymmetric: The West would weaken sanctions in exchange for cosmetic changes that do absolutely nothing to weaken Iran’s nuclear infrastructure.
Don’t worry, we are assured. This is only an interim six-month agreement to “build confidence” until we reach a final one. But this makes no sense. If at this point of maximum economic pressure we can’t get Iran to accept a final deal that shuts down its nuclear program, how in God’s name do we expect to get such a deal when we have radically reduced that pressure?
A bizarre negotiating tactic. And the content of the deal is even worse. It’s a rescue package for the mullahs.
A top White House official has declared that Israel’s proposal that Iran totally dismantle its nuclear capacity in exchange for sanctions relief would likely lead to war.
According to JTA, the unnamed official made the comments in a conference call on Wednesday with think tanks and advocacy groups sympathetic to the Obama administration’s Iran strategy.
A think tank participant on the call said that Israel’s posture, demanding a total halt to enrichment and the dismantling of all of Iran’s centrifuges, was a path to war.
Agreeing that such reasoning was “sound,” the White House official said that given a choice between “total capitulation” and advancing toward a nuclear weapon, Iran would choose the weapon.
Ben Stein at The American Spectator asks, is this really happening?
I really cannot believe what I am seeing in the news about the U.S. and Iran. In 2013, less than 70 years after the end of the Hitler regime in Europe that killed half of all of the Jews in the world, roughly half of the Jews in the world are threatened with annihilation again—and the U.S. administration is not only going along with it, but cheering on the possibility.
Hitler did not have nuclear weapons, thank God, and there was no tiny little country like Israel where 7 million of the race he hated with such a crazed vengeance lived. So he had to send police and militia and the Gestapo and the SS and local anti-Semites to round up the Jews, move them to nearby fields for shooting or beating, or in trains to death factories like Auschwitz where thousands of Jews a day were gassed in the most horrible circumstances imaginable.
The Iranians in the recent past have pledged to destroy the Jewish people in the Middle East. Some of their leaders have boasted that if Iran gets nuclear weapons, Iran will have “a holocaust in an afternoon” by rocketing a few nuclear weapons into Israel. Naturally, the Israelis are desperately worried.
Glenn Foden cartoon via Townhall
Today’s Democrats have grown up in the Saul Alinsky tradition, and on Thursday they proved it with a partisan vote to break the Senate filibuster rule for confirming judges and executive-branch nominees. The new rules will empower the party’s liberals for as long as they control the White House and Senate, but they will also set a precedent for conservatives to exploit in the future.
Majority Leader Harry Reid broke a GOP filibuster of a judicial nominee on a 52-48 vote. He was prodded by the Democratic Senate classes of 2006-2012, younger liberals in a hurry like Al Franken (Minnesota), Jeff Merkley (Oregon) and Jeanne Shaheen (New Hampshire). These are the same liberals who enjoyed a rare 60-vote supermajority in 2009-2010 when they rammed through ObamaCare without a single Republican vote. They view the minority as an inconvenience to be rolled.
It’s true that Senators of both parties have misused the advice and consent power to make it harder for the executive branch to govern. But the great irony is that Democrats voted to end the practice of judicial filibusters that they pioneered when George W. Bush was President. As the minority from 2003-2005, Democrats demanded 60 votes to confirm executive-branch nominees like John Bolton for U.N. Ambassador.
For the first time they also insisted on 60 votes for judicial nominees Miguel Estrada, Janice Rogers Brown, Priscilla Owen, Carolyn Kuhl, Henry Saad, William Pryor, David McKeague, Richard Griffin, Charles Pickering and William Gerry Myers.
Conn Carroll, Townhall: Why Republicans Won’t Offer An Obamacare Alternative In 2014:
…you shouldn’t expect Republicans to coalesce around any alternative anytime soon. Here’s why:
1. Democrats Are Dying For A Villain To Run Against. President Obama is at his most effective when he has an opponent to demonize. Right now, he doesn’t really have one, other than the insurance companies, and he needs them as allies or Obamacare will completely collapse.
That is why, as The Washington Post‘s Greg Sargent reported Wednesday, “the Democratic Senatorial Campaign Committee is set to launch a new campaign designed to refocus the debate on the Republican position on health care, which Dems will widely label as ‘Cruz Care.'”
It doesn’t matter what the actual policies in any Republican plan are, Democrats will label whatever Republicans come up with as “Cruz Care.” Democrats will then tie Cruz, who is highly unpopular among independents across the country, to every Republican candidate. Why would Republicans want to help Democrats do this?
Sadly, Republicans know that they are running against not only their Democrat opponents, but the Democrat media complex, as well. So they keep their cards close to their chests.
Since she couldn’t afford the new plan offered by her insurer, she told me she was eager to explore her new choices under theAffordable Care Act. Washington Healthplanfinder is one of the better health-exchange sites, and she was actually able to log on. She entered her personal and financial data. With efficiency uncommon to the ObamaCare process, the site quickly presented her with a health-care option.
That is not a typo: There was just one option—at the very affordable monthly rate of zero. The exchange had determined that my mother was not eligible to choose to pay for a plan, and so she was slated immediately for Medicaid. She couldn’t believe it was true and held off completing the application.
“How has it come to this?” she asked in one of our several talks over the past few weeks about what was happening. When she was a working mother and I was young, she easily carried health insurance for our whole family. “How have I fallen this far?”
Not everyone wants Obama’s handouts.
I can’t even begin to imagine what this family is going through.
GAINESVILLE, TEXAS — A Gainesville family is fighting for their childrens’ lives.
Ronald and Krista Alford’s two children, Hunter and Mikayla, were born with extremely rare types of cancer.
Now, sven years into fighting that battle, they’ve been hit with a new one: their children’s insurance has been cancelled, affecting Hunter’s chemotherapy.
News 12′s Allison Harris brings us their story of struggle and strength.
Ron Fournier:, National Journal: Obama’s Image Machine: Monopolistic Propaganda Funded by You:
New York Times photographer Doug Mills strode into Jay Carney’s office Oct. 29 with a pile of pictures taken exclusively by President Obama’s official photographer at events the White House press corps was forbidden to cover. “This one,” Mills said, sliding one picture after another off his stack and onto the press secretary’s desk. “This one, too – and this one and this one and … .”
The red-faced photographer, joined by colleagues on the White House Correspondents’ Association board, finished his 10-minute presentation with a flourish that made Carney, a former Moscow correspondent for Time, wince.
“You guys,” Mills said, “are just like Tass.”
Comparing the White House to the Russian news agency is a hyperbole, of course, but less so with each new administration. Obama’s image-makers are taking advantage of new technologies that democratized the media, subverting independent news organizations that hold the president accountable. A generation ago, a few mainstream media organizations held a monopoly on public information about the White House. Today, the White House itself is behaving monopolistic.
The fast-moving trend is hampering reporters and videographers who cover the White House, but Mills’ profession has probably been hardest hit. “As surely as if they were placing a hand over a journalist’s camera lens, officials in this administration are blocking the public from having an independent view of important functions of the Executive Branch of government,” reads a letter delivered today to Carney by the WHCA and several member news organizations including The Associated Press and The New York Times.
The letter includes examples of important news events that were not covered by media photographers, and yet pictures were taken by the White House image team and widely distributed via social media. This happens almost daily.
Unlike media photographers, official White House photographers are paid by taxpayers and report to the president. Their job is to make Obama look good. They are propagandists – in the purest sense of the word.
The letter reminds Carney that Obama promised to run the most transparent administration in history. It argues that the restrictions “raise constitutional concerns” and amount to “arbitrary restraint and unwarranted interference on legitimate newsgathering activities.”
Journalists understand that the president’s family and national security events must be off-limits at times. Journalists also don’t object to the White House using social media; those are platforms as legitimate as televisions and print. The problem is that the Obama White House is simultaneously restricting access of independent media while flooding the public with state-run media.
Again, this is propaganda – utterly lacking a skeptical eye. The irony is that Obama is using technology that democratized and flattened the media to centralize and strengthen the powers an institution, The Presidency.
I brought this up in the podcast– I think Eekdahl agreed with me. The media is attempting to claim they were snookered by Obamacare, same as us.
Well, not us. We got it. But the media is now claiming that they were snookered along with the rest of the Low Information Voters.
Sort of like they’re turning to us now, after having echoed Obama’s lies about Obamacare for five years, and saying, “Can you believe the bullshit this guy is tellin’ us…?”
Um, guys? You told us the same bullshit.
You know how Obama poses as a spectator to his own Administration? As someone who has no responsibility to actually do a good job, but only to criticize the government when it fails to do a good job?
Watch Politico attempt the same maneuver here– apparently forgetting that as a news operation focused only on DC and the laws promulgated there, they had a responsibility to report the actual facts about Obamacare:
[Headline:] Obamacare tradeoffs: Now they tell us …
They’re telling you this now? Were you incapable of reading the law or the Federal Register? Did you feel no obligation to check the veracity of Obama’s claims? Did you feel that Senator Enzi’s detailed chapter-and-verse explanation of how Obamacare would boot off millions from their insurance companies was Obviously A Lie, just because he’s a conservative?
Eric Allie cartoon via Townhall
Weasel Zippers: WaPo: Tea Party Predecessors Killed JFK…
The Washington Post has sunk to a new low with this piece.
The president is a socialist. He is neutering the United States on the world stage. He is spending us into bankruptcy. He is hellbent on expanding national health care, which will surely lead to government death panels.
He is advancing big-government agendas everywhere from Main Street to Wall Street. And do we really know the truth about his personal history and religion?
Jack Cashill, The American Spectator, How Trayvon’s Knockout Game Went Bad:
Martin had four minutes to run less than a hundred yards to his townhouse. When he saw Zimmerman exit his truck, he set upon another strategy. There is no reason to believe that Jeantel tried to discourage him. In fact, she could never quite remember how it was that the final confrontation went down. Although the State chose to believe Jeantel, on this point, on all points, Zimmerman’s testimony was much more credible.
“As I headed back to my vehicle the suspect emerged from the darkness and said, ‘You got a problem?'” wrote Zimmerman on the night of the shooting. When Zimmerman answered “No,” the suspect said, “You do now,” and sucker punched him in the face. What Martin did not suspect is that this creepy ass cracker was armed. It cost him his life.
By the time of this incident, the knockout game was a well established phenomenon among young black males, especially troubled ones like Martin, the product of a broken home and a broken culture. Martin’s assault on Zimmerman fit an obvious pattern.
Calling all lap-dogs – it’s a Defcon level 3 emergency in the White House…..Obama’s approval rating has dipped below 40% – The American people no longer trust him – emergency contingency deceptions needed to mitigate damage to Obama’s credibility….
We used to call these sycophants “juice-boxers”, now we just call them “dead-enders.”
Bob Owens, Bearing Arms: Yes, an Obama DOJ memo says ban will not work without gun registration, confiscation:
Fears of gun registration and confiscation have run rampant since Barack Obama assumed the Presidency and appointed Eric Holder as Attorney General, and now we can confirm that those fears were well founded.
Red Flag News posted the following in February:
The National Rifle Association has obtained a Department of Justice memo calling for national gun registration and confiscation. The nine page “cursory summary” on current gun control initiatives was not officially released by the Obama administration.
The DOJ memo (downloadable here as a PDF) states the administration “believes that a gun ban will not work without mandatory gun confiscation,” according to the NRA, and thinks universal background checks “won’t work without requiring national gun registration.” Obama has yet to publicly support national registration or firearms confiscation, although the memo reveals his administration is moving in that direction.
My latest at the Conversation: