Search
Archives

You are currently browsing the archives for the Iran category.

Categories

Archive for the ‘Iran’ Category

Last night, the US joined with the British and French to bomb parts of Syria’s WMD infrastructure. According to the BBC, the “US, UK and France have bombed multiple government targets in Syria in an early morning operation targeting alleged chemical weapons sites. The strikes were in response to a suspected chemical attack on the Syrian town of Douma last week. Explosions hit the capital, Damascus, as well as two locations near the city of Homs, the Pentagon said.”

In response, the Russian embassy in the United States published this tweet, stating “A pre-designed scenario is being implemented. Again, we are being threatened. We warned that such actions will not be left without consequences. All responsibility for them rests with Washington, London and Paris.”

I suspect that tweet is meant mostly for domestic consumption. I’m certain this doesn’t worry anyone in the Trump, May or Macron national security teams. Around 9:00 pm CT, President Trump delivered a speech announcing the newest round of bombings of Syria’s WMD infrastructure:

The speech also contained this warning to both Russia and Iran:

I also have a message tonight for the two governments most responsible for supporting, equipping and financing the criminal Assad regime. To Iran and to Russia, I ask: What kind of a nation wants to be associated with the mass murder of innocent men, women, and children? The nations of the world can be judged by the friends they keep. No nation can succeed in the long run by promoting rogue states, brutal tyrants and murderous dictators.

In 2013, President Putin and his government promised the world that they would guarantee the elimination of Syria’s chemical weapons. Assad’s recent attack, and today’s response, are the direct result of Russia’s failure to keep that promise.

Whether these airstrikes have crippled Syria’s WMD infrastructure is still to be determined. What isn’t in question is whether President Trump will tolerate Russia’s meddling like President Obama tolerated Putin’s expansionist policies.

Let’s not forget these wise words on the difference between President Trump and President Obama:

Way at the end of the video, Charles Krauthammer stated that the initial strike against Syria didn’t say that “there’s a new sheriff in town” but that “there’s a sheriff in town.” Friday night’s airstrike is a refreshing reminder that President Trump isn’t the Hand-Ringer-In-Chief that President Obama was. This sends the unmistakable message that he’ll enforce the red line that Obama drew, then ran away from.

Technorati: , , , , , , , , ,

Susan Rice’s NYTimes op-ed is a collection of whiny complaints. Among her litany of complaints, one complaint stood out. It’s actually worth examining.

In the op-ed, Rice said “The same policy stagnation afflicts our ability to confront the most pressing threats to our security, from North Korea to the risk of terrorists acquiring weapons of mass destruction, from pandemic disease to Russian aggression. Our ability to counter such outside menaces is increasingly undermined by our collective failure to work together. Indeed, the most significant, long-term threat to our security may be our domestic political polarization.”

Let’s ask ourselves where the political polarization is coming from. Let’s start at the beginning of the Trump administration. When massive numbers of Democrats boycott President Trump’s inauguration, which party is sowing seeds of political polarization? It isn’t Republicans. When every Democrat votes against making even the slightest change to Obamacare, who is the agent of political polarization? It isn’t Republicans. When Democrats vote unanimously against tax cuts that are putting money in families’ pockets and energizing the US economy, who’s sewing seeds of political polarization? It isn’t Republicans. When President Trump puts together a thoughtful immigration plan that give a little (too much?) on DACA amnesty in exchange for funding of the Wall and ending chain migration and the diversity visa lottery programs and Democrats criticize it within minutes of its presentation, who’s sewing seeds of political polarization? It isn’t the Republicans.

It’s foolish to argue that Republicans don’t contribute to the political polarization. There’s a difference, though, between contributing to a negative situation and agitating for political polarization. The Democrats’ resistance movement is based solely on political polarization.

After Ms. Rice’s opening tirade, she gets into an Alice-in-Wonderland argument:

Similarly, the Iranians know that our resolve to prevent them from acquiring a nuclear weapon may crumble under partisan pressure. China is pursuing its economic and strategic ambitions in Asia unconstrained by an America so divided that we jettisoned the Trans-Pacific Partnership agreement we negotiated, while its signatories reap its rewards without us.

First, it wasn’t the Trump administration that negotiated a treaty so bad that they wouldn’t let the Senate vote on it. That treaty didn’t prevent the Iranians from getting a nuclear weapon. It sped up the timetable for them getting a nuclear weapon. Then after speeding up that timetable, the US president shipped $150,000,000,000 to Iran, which it then quickly used to fund Hezbollah’s terrorist activities. Talk about brilliant.

Next, China is getting confronted by the Trump administration. The results haven’t always been what we’ve wanted but they’re confronting them. The Obama administration’s policy of leading from behind didn’t work. Period.

Rice’s op-ed is titled “We Have Met the Enemy, and He Is Us”. If you define Us as the Obama administration, I agree.

This article perfectly illustrates the foolishness of progressive foreign policy. As if we hadn’t gotten too much of that during the Obama administration, we’re getting another shot of it in this article.

In the article, it says “The move is also likely to isolate the U.S., cause confusion about its intentions, permit Iran to claim the high ground in any push to renegotiate, and provide both allies and adversaries with more evidence that the United States can’t be trusted.” Let’s start with that last statement about the US not being able to be trusted. What’s true is that the US can be trusted to correct its mistakes that left allies in the Middle East threatened by the developing Iranian hegemon.

There’s a reason why the nations refused to attend President Obama’s summit on the Middle East. Those nations flocked to President Trump’s summit, though. That leads to the refutation that not certifying the Iran deal again will “likely isolate the US.” Here’s a question the author might want to ask himself: how can a man who gets 50+ Middle East and southwest Asia and north African nations to attend his summit on Iran and its proxies be isolated? Does this look isolated?

This isn’t reassuring:

The 2015 deal lifted sanctions against Iran in exchange for limits on its nuclear program. Iran’s compliance is being monitored by the United Nations, which has declared that the Islamic Republic is sticking by the letter of its obligations.

Getting the UN’s word that Iran is living up to any agreement is like getting an arsonist’s word that he won’t play with matches anymore. In other words, it’s worthless. As for the limits, they’re temporary. President Trump is attempting to renegotiate more permanent limits, something the Obama administration didn’t even attempt to do.

Iran still is developing a missile program and actively opposing U.S. policy in Syria, Iraq and plenty of other places. Trump, who has called the agreement “embarrassing” and much worse, can’t really declare that Iran is violating its terms. Instead, he’s likely to say Iran is not following its spirit, or that the deal is no longer in the U.S. national interest. The idea seems to be that decertifying will increase pressure on Iran to behave.

The point the Trump administration made last week is that the agreement was so limited in scope as to make it worthless. Getting Iran to limit some of its terrorist-supporting actions isn’t securing our nation or our allies.

The Obama-Kerry foreign policy was built on the premise that appeasement works. It doesn’t. That’s why it’s important for the US to reassert its leadership in the Middle East.

This article in the Pi-Press is disgusting in its dishonesty. In the article, the ‘reporter’ says that “Trump’s highly controversial order suspends refugee admissions for 120 days and bars all immigration for 90 days of citizens from seven Muslim-majority countries with terrorism concerns: Iran, Iraq, Libya, Somalia, Sudan, Syria and Yemen. Those now being barred from the country include refugees who have already been thoroughly vetted by U.S. agencies.”

Either this reporter is telling an outright lie or he’s incredibly ignorant of the truth. Though Politifact attempts to sweep things under the carpet, the fact remains that FBI Director James Comey testified that “We can only query against that which we have collected, and so if someone has never made a ripple in the pond in Syria in a way that would get their identity or their interests reflected in our database, we can query our database till the cows come home, but … there’ll be nothing show up, because we have no record on that person.”

Politifact tried spinning things by saying “But did James Comey actually say the FBI “cannot properly vet” people coming from the Middle East? No, he didn’t. Beruff is distorting a point Comey was making about a flaw in the vetting process, but he was reiterating the system in place was actually much better than it had been in the past.”

Here’s the real exchange:

Ranking member Rep. Bennie Thompson (D-Miss.) asked Comey, “Mr. Director, before this committee, [FBI] Assistant Director [Michael] Steinbach said that the concerns in Syria is that we don’t have the systems in place on the ground to collect the information to vet. That would be the concern. Databases don’t hold the information on these individuals. Is that still the position of the department?”

“Yes, I think that’s the challenge we’re all talking about, is that we can only query against that which we have collected, and so if someone has never made a ripple in the pond in Syria in a way that would get their identity or their interests reflected in our database, we can query our database till the cows come home, but we’re not gonna—there’ll be nothing show up, because we have no record on that person,” said Comey. “That’s what Assistant Director Steinbach was talking about,” he added.

Not having verifiable data to compare against isn’t “a flaw in the vetting process.” That’s admitting that it’s impossible to vet people. Here’s video of FBI Director Comey’s testimony:

That’s pretty open-and-shut testimony.

Technorati: , , , , , , , , , , , , , ,

The dishonest media is doing its best to whip the nation into a frenzy by not reporting the contents of President Trump’s EO accurately. Democrats are doing everything possible to keep the public misinformed. Kamala Harris, who replaced Barbara Boxer as the junior senator from California, is protesting President Trump’s EO that temporarily bans Muslims from 7 specific nations known as terrorist hotbeds. Rather than doing the job that people expect them to do, which is to accurately inform people of what’s happening in Washington, DC, the dishonest media is doing its best to mislead the public while telling people that President Trump is a racist and an Islamophobe.

William Jacobsen rightly said in this post that people “should actually read it“. The important part of what President Trump’s EO said actually cites the US law that permits him to act in our nation’s national security interests. It says “Pursuant to section 212(f) of the INA, 8 U.S.C. 1182(f), I hereby proclaim that the entry of nationals of Syria as refugees is detrimental to the interests of the United States and thus suspend any such entry until such time as I have determined that sufficient changes have been made to the USRAP to ensure that admission of Syrian refugees is consistent with the national interest.”

Not only is the dishonest media getting things wrong. It’s badly misleading people to the point where it’s difficult that this isn’t intentional. Progressive activists aren’t helping, either, by flocking to social media to complain about President Trump’s EO, then aggregating them under the hashtag #MuslimBan. What the dishonest media and these progressive activists haven’t explained is how the so-called #MuslimBan doesn’t include the nation with the biggest Muslim population in the world (Indonesia) or how Muslim nations like Turkey, Jordan, Egypt and Saudi Arabia aren’t on the list.

Then there’s this:

The order bars all people hailing from Iraq, Syria, Iran, Libya, Somalia, Sudan and Yemen. Those countries were named in a 2016 law concerning immigration visas as “countries of concern.”

If Trump is anti-Muslim for temporarily banning people from these countries, then former President Obama must be anti-Muslim, too, because he signed the bill into law. Thomas Lifson’s article highlights the fact that Syria is the only nation named in President Trump’s EO:

I read the order and Iraq, Iran, Libya, Somalia, Sudan and Yemen are not mentioned in it. Go back and read it again. Do a “ctrl-f” to find “Iraq.” Where is “Iraq” in the order. It’s not there. Only Syria is there. So where are the seven nations? Where is the “Muslim ban?” It turns out this was a form of fake news, or alternative facts. Trump didn’t select seven “Muslim-majority” countries. US President Barack Obama’s administration selected these seven Muslim-majority countries.

This is proof positive that President Trump is right in calling the dishonest media the opposition party. I’d go a step further. I’d argue that they’re unindicted co-conspirators with dishonest Democratic Party politicians like Elizabeth Warren, Chuck Schumer, Kamala Harris, Dianne Feinstein and Nancy Pelosi.

If their collective dishonesty were political capital, that bunch would rule Washington, DC for decades. Thank God that isn’t the case. They’re just a bunch of dishonest progressive politicians that the nation rejected this past November. I’ll leave you with this video:

It’s video of a manipulative, dishonest politician. I never thought I’d say this but I think I’d prefer Harry Reid over this politician.

The opening paragraph of Thomas Friedman’s latest column is proof positive that he’s a blithering idiot. It’s proof, too, that he’s overpaid.

The opening paragraph of Friedman’s column says “For those of you confused over the latest fight between President Obama and Prime Minister Bibi Netanyahu of Israel, let me make it simple: Barack Obama and John Kerry admire and want to preserve Israel as a Jewish and democratic state in the Land of Israel. I have covered this issue my entire adult life and have never met two U.S. leaders more committed to Israel as a Jewish democracy.”

It’s difficult to comment on such breathtaking stupidity. In the next paragraph, Friedman continues, saying “But they are convinced — rightly — that Netanyahu is a leader who is forever dog paddling in the middle of the Rubicon, never ready to cross it. He is unwilling to make any big, hard decision to advance or preserve a two-state solution if that decision in any way risks his leadership of Israel’s right-wing coalition or forces him to confront the Jewish settlers, who relentlessly push Israel deeper and deeper into the West Bank.”

Speaking of someone who “is unwilling to make any big, hard decision to advance or preserve a two-state solution if that decision in any way risks his leadership”, this is who fits that description:

It’s impossible to make a thoughtful argument that President Obama and John Kerry are pro-Israel. First, they sell out the entire Arab Peninsula, north Africa and Israel by negotiating a sweetheart nuclear proliferation deal with Iran, then giving the biggest state sponsor of terrorism $150,000,000,000 to spend on Hezbollah, Hamas and other anti-Israel proxies in the Middle East. Then, to ‘prove’ their loyalty to Israel, they ship systems to bolster Israel from the missiles that Iran’s proxies will buy with the money they got from Mssrs. Obama and Kerry. Then there’s this:

That is what precipitated this fight over Obama’s decision not to block a U.N. resolution last week criticizing Israeli settlements in the West Bank. The settlers’ goal is very clear, as Kerry put it on Wednesday: to strategically place settlements “in locations that make two states impossible,” so that Israel will eventually annex all of the West Bank. Netanyahu knows this will bring huge problems, but his heart is with the settlers, and his passion is with holding power — at any cost.

I won’t rebut that BS. Instead, I’ll let Alan Dershowitz obliterate Friedman’s BS:

Before June 4, 1967, Jews were forbidden from praying at the Western Wall, Judaism’s holiest site. They were forbidden to attend classes at the Hebrew University at Mt. Scopus, which had been opened in 1925 and was supported by Albert Einstein. Jews could not seek medical care at the Hadassah Hospital on Mt. Scopus, which had treated Jews and Arabs alike since 1918. Jews could not live in the Jewish Quarter of Jerusalem, where their forbearers had built homes and synagogues for thousands of years. These Judenrein prohibitions were enacted by Jordan, which had captured by military force these Jewish areas during Israel’s War of Independence, in 1948, and had illegally occupied the entire West Bank, which the United Nations had set aside for an Arab state. When the Jordanian government occupied these historic Jewish sites, they destroyed all the remnants of Judaism, including synagogues, schools, and cemeteries, whose headstones they used for urinals. Between 1948 and 1967 the UN did not offer a single resolution condemning this Jordanian occupation and cultural devastation.

What Friedman doesn’t say is that this UNSCR, #2334, classifies these settlements as “territories being illegally occupied by Israel, and any building in these areas — including places for prayer at the Western Wall, access roads to Mt. Scopus, and synagogues in the historic Jewish Quarter — ‘constitutes a flagrant violation under international law.'”

I’ll finish by stating emphatically that Thomas Friedman isn’t a journalist. He’d fit right in at Media Matters or Think Progress or other far left fever swamp websites.

Technorati: , , , , , , , , , , , , ,

It isn’t a secret that CAIR isn’t a legitimate civil rights organization. They’ve supported terrorist groups like Hamas. They were funded by Hamas. Thursday night, Hassan Shibly, the “chief executive director of CAIR-Florida’s chapter, attempted to shame Carl Higbie, a former Navy Seal and the spokesman for the pro-Trump Great America PAC. Wednesday night, Higbie was on Megyn Kelly’s show when Higbie talked about a registry of immigrants from Muslim countries. Higbie said “To be perfectly honest, it’s legal. It’ll hold constitutional muster. I know the ACLU will challenge it but I think it’ll pass. We did it with Iran back a while ago. We did it during WW II with the Japanese.”

Thursday night, Higbie was Megyn’s guest again. This time, he expanded on his statement of Wednesday night, saying “It was strictly a reference to the scrutiny of immigrants and registration of immigrants coming from places like Japan, Germany and Italy and places like that.”

When it was Shibly’s turn to speak, he immediately said to Higbie “To Carl, I say ‘have you no sense of decency? Sir, America is a country based on freedom of religion. Freedom of religion is a fundamental principle that I have taken an oath and I’m sure that you have taken an oath to protect. It is ineffective to target people based solely on religion. Let’s target criminals. Let’s target terrorists…”
Here’s the video of Thursday night’s interview:

It isn’t that religious freedom isn’t a fundamental right in the United States. It’s that protecting its citizens from Islamic terrorists is one of the federal government’s primary responsibilities, too. There’s judicial precedent stating that forcing people coming from terrorist nations to sign into a register before entering our nation is a reasonable thing. It’s interesting that CAIR is ok with registering guns in the name of preventing attacks but it’s protesting against registering people who might be violent terrorists.

It’s foolish to think that sovereign nations don’t have the right to protect its citizens from potentially violent immigrants. In fact, as commander-in-chief and as the chief law enforcement officer of the United States, the president has an affirmative responsibility to protect his citizens from violence.

Technorati: , , , , , , , , , , , , , , ,

According to this article, ISIS is taking credit for the stabbing spree at Crossroads Mall in St. Cloud.

This morning, they issued this statement, saying “The executor of the stabbing attacks in Minnesota yesterday was a soldier of the Islamic State and carried out the operation in response to calls to target the citizens of countries belonging to the crusader coalition.”

ISIS wasn’t the only person issuing a statement Sunday morning. US Sen. Klobuchar issued a statement, saying in part “Everyone should feel safe in their community, whether they’re at school or a movie theater or a shopping mall. Last night that feeling of safety was greatly shaken when an assailant stabbed eight people at the Crossroads Center Mall in St. Cloud. I have visited the mall many times, and I can’t imagine the horror experienced by those visiting and working there. My heart goes out to the victims and all those who were there last night.”

Noticeably missing from Sen. Klobuchar’s statement was a call for knife control legislation. Noticeably missing, too, from Sen. Klobuchar’s statement was her admitting that she supported President Obama’s Iran deal, which transferred $150,000,000,000 to the biggest state sponsor of terrorism.

It’s fitting to care about those who were attacked at Crossroads Mall last night. I don’t have a problem with that. I just wish she was as passionate about stopping terrorists before they commit acts of terrorism. I’d appreciate it, too, if Sen. Klobuchar wasn’t intent on inviting more terrorists into Minnesota:

MONTAGNE: Now, in a letter to the president earlier this year, you joined 13 other senators and cited a number suggested for the U.S. by a major coalition of U.S. refugee groups, 65,000 Syrian refugees. That was their number. That would be a dramatic increase. Do you think that’s a realistic number?

KLOBUCHAR: Well, the U.S., since we sent the letter, has agreed to increase from the around 1,000 mark to 5 to 8,000. And Senator Durbin and I, who led the letter, see this as a positive sign and a good beginning. We’re talking about it over a period of time, the 65,000. And it is actually 50 percent of what the U.N. commission on refugees suggested that we take. That’s usually the ballpark of what our country does.

What type of idiot invites more potential terrorists into Minnesota? Sen. Klobuchar later said that “we have a very intense screening process for these Syrian refugees.”

I wrote here that “Nicholas Rasmussen, the head of the National Counterterrorism Center, admitted ‘the intelligence that we have of this particular conflict zone is not as rich as we would like it to be.'”

Now that ISIS has infiltrated Minnesota and the United States, it would probably be wise to shut down the refugee resettlement program for at least a year.

Technorati: , , , ,

When Hillary criticized Donald Trump for visiting Mexico, she said “You don’t build a coalition by insulting our friends or acting like a loose cannon. You do it by putting in the slow, hard work of building relationships. Getting countries working together was my job every day as your Secretary of State. It’s more than a photo op. It takes consistency and reliability. Actually, it’s just like building personal relationships. People have got to know that they can count on you – that you won’t say one thing one day and something totally different the next.”

I’m sick of Hillary flapping her gums while pretending to have been a competent secretary of state. She wasn’t competent. HRC said that people “have got to know that they can count on you”, something that Christopher Stevens found out he couldn’t do. HRC wasn’t someone he could count on. He died while counting on HRC.

Next, Hillary said that diplomacy is about “putting in the slow, hard work of building relationships.” Is she talking about the slow, hard work of building a relationship with Iran’s mullahs? Or building the relationship with the Muslim Brotherhood in Egypt during the Arab Spring? Perhaps, she meant capitulating and appeasing Vladimir Putin in Russia? Which of those instances would HRC pick as shining examples of her competence?

Here’s hoping Donald Trump hits back at HRC with questions about her incompetence as Secretary of State.

During his speech to the delegates attending the Democratic National Convention, Vice President Joe Biden was at his BSing best. At one point in his speech, Biden attacked Donald Trump, saying “lack of empathy and compassion can be summed up in a phrase I suspect he’s most proud of having made famous, ‘you’re fired,’. How can there be pleasure in saying ‘you’re fired?’ He’s trying to tell us he cares about the middle class? Give me a break!” That’s when Biden deployed “his own well-used tagline: “That’s a bunch of malarkey!”

In another part of the speech, Biden praised Hillary, saying “Everybody knows she is smart. Everybody knows she is tough. But I know what she is passionate about. I know Hillary. Hillary understands. Hillary gets it.”

When Biden praised President Obama, he went way overboard, saying that President Barack Obama was “the embodiment of honor, resolve and character, one of the finest presidents we have ever had.” What a bunch of malarkey.

First, if Hillary is so smart, why did she expose her emails to Chinese, Iranian and Russian hackers? If Hillary’s so smart, why did Russia experience a revival after Ronald Reagan killed it? Why did the Muslim Brotherhood take control of Egypt? If Hillary’s so smart, how did Christopher Stevens not get the security he needed?

Next, saying that President Obama is “one of the finest presidents we’ve ever had” isn’t just dishonest. It’s verifiably false on issue after issue. Obamacare was supposedly President Obama’s “signature accomplishment.” Today, Americans were forced out of policies that they were satisfied with and into policies with ever-increasing premiums and skyrocketing deductibles.

President Obama’s stimulus didn’t revive the economy. It’s been the most anemic economy since WWII. In June, 2012, the workforce participation rate was at a 30-year low of 64.3%. Four years later, the labor force participation rate dropped two-tenths of a point to 62.6 percent, near its 38-year low.

In terms of keeping Americans safe, President Obama is a failure. Police officers are getting assassinated, thanks in large part to President Obama’s unwillingness to call out #BlackLivesMatter activists and Al Sharpton for the ‘Hands up, don’t shoot’ hoax. In terms of preventing terrorist attacks and terrorist attacks increasing thanks in large part to President Obama’s unseriousness in destroying ISIS, he’s failed the US and the world.

If that’s the resume of “one of the finest presidents we have ever had”, I’ve got something to say to Vice President Biden: that’s a bunch of malarkey.

Technorati: , , , , , , , , , . , , , ,