The Iran *Deal*

When one makes a deal, there usually is some give and take on the issue.  I might like a little more here, you might wish to take a little more there, and we'll end up somewhere near the middle, theoretically.

After today's announced *deal* with Iran, it's quite clear that President Obama never took even a basic level negotiating class.  Hell, he didn't bother even watching some YouTube videos of people who actually know how to negotiate.  In short, these are the official gains that Iran  garnered, while getting to remain a breeding zone for future terrorists:

• We'll never know what previous violations of international agreement Iran committed with regard to their nuclear program.  Why?  Apparently Obama and other world leaders didn't want to offend the terrorists who are in charge of Iran's government.  Or maybe they just believed it to be bad manners to ask about such insignificant matters.
• Legitimization of Iran's nuclear program, in that this new *deal* provides them a pathway to become a nuclear power within the next decade, with our blessing.  Whether or not the Iranians care to wait that long remains to be seen, but it must be disconcerting to our *closest* ally in the region, Israel, that Obama (and other 'leaders') essentially signed off on Iran's stated goal of destroying the Israeli state.
• Iran gains access to tens of Billions of dollars in international sanctions relief without doing a damn thing.  You know, kind of like a parting gift to game show losers, except Iran absolutely was the biggest winner today.  All the pretty language in the *deal* that claims anything like Iran having to keep the promises it made in the agreement mean absolutely nothing, because the signees of the agreement are the ones who will be checking up on Iran (and yes, Iran is part of that cartel), and there is no earthly reason for them to admit to making a wicked googily.  None whatsoever.
• Iran will have the ability to Heisman international inspectors, with little to no repercussions.  This is unconscionably horrific *negotiating*.  We are now going to trust the people who for the last 35 plus years have been one of the largest, if not the largest centers of state-sponsored terrorism.  Apparently that's not a big deal in today's world, and is so 20th century.
• In case anyone has forgotten, Mahmoud Ahmadinejad is eligible to run for President of Iran again in 2017.  This is the man who denies the Holocaust ever occurred, and has talked openly about ending the Jewish state.  Next time he's in charge, he'll have nuclear weapons.  Thanks a lot, Obama.
• Arms embargoes and missile embargoes (why there's a separate timeline, I don't know) are so constricting.  The solution to that problem is to eliminate them for Iran.  So within 5 years' time, the arms embargo against Iran will be gone, and in 8 years, so to will the missile embargo.
• All normal trade, including banking and investment, are back in play.  Capitalists may not delight in this as much as they might have if they didn't have to worry about their new trade partner dropping a nuclear weapon on their back door, but hey, it'll be one Hell of a party, I'm sure.

This was not a deal, ladies and gentlemen, this was a good ol' fashioned @ss-whooping, and I'm sure this is just the starting point.  As the deal is further dissected, we'll find even more *goodies* buried in there.
Having given away everything, including the front door keys to the White House, you'd expect that Obama might have asked for a small token of appreciation in return, no?  Like perhaps the return of the 4 American citizens (Robert Levinson - 2007, Amir Hekmati - 2011, Saeed Abedini - 2012, and Jason Rezaian) that Tehran has held hostage?  No dice on that front, sorry.  In fact, Obama thinks you are a moron, perhaps a traitor, if you dare proffer a question asking why the hostages were not released.  Below is the transcript of CBS reporter Major Garrett and Obama's exchange:

Major Garrett: As you well know, there are four Americans in Iran - three held on trumped up charges according to your administration, one, whereabouts unknown. Can you tell the country, sir, why you are content, with all of the fanfare around this [nuclear] deal to leave the conscience of this nation, the strength of this nation, unaccounted for, in relation to these four Americans?

And last week, the Chairman of the Joint Chiefs of Staff said under no circumstances should there be any relief for Iran in terms of ballistic missiles or conventional weapons. It was perceived that that was a last-minute capitulation in these negotiations, making the Pentagon feel you've left the Chairman of the Joint Chiefs of Staff hung out to dry. Could you comment?

Play Video

President Obama talks nuclear deal, hostages

President Obama: I've got to give you credit, Major, for how you craft those questions. The notion that I am content, as I celebrate with American citizens languishing in Iranian jails - Major, that's nonsense. And you should know better. I've met with the families of some of those folks. Nobody's content, and our diplomats and our teams are working diligently to try to get them out.

Now, if the question is why we did not tie the negotiations to their release, think about the logic that that creates. Suddenly, Iran realizes, you know what, maybe we can get additional concessions out of the Americans (emphasis added) by holding these individuals - makes it much more difficult for us to walk away if Iran somehow thinks that a nuclear deal is dependent in some fashion on the nuclear deal. And by the way, if we had walked away from the nuclear deal, we'd still be pushing just as hard to get these folks out. That's why those issues are not connected, but we are working every single day to try to get them out and won't stop until they're out and rejoined with their families.

With respect to the Chairman's testimony, to some degree I already answered this with Carol. We are not taking the pressure off Iran with respect to arms and with respect to ballistic missiles. As I just explained, not only do we keep in place for five years the arms embargo this particular new UN resolution, not only do we maintain the eight years on the ballistic missiles under this particular UN resolution, but we have a host of other multilateral and unilateral authorities that allow us to take action where we see Iran engaged in those activities - whether it's six years from now or 10 years from now.
So, we have not lost those legal authorities, and in fact part of my pitch to the GCC countries, as well as to Prime Minister Netanyahu, is we should do a better job making sure that Iran's not engaged in sending arms to organizations like Hezbollah, and as I just indicated, that means improving our intelligence capacity and our interdiction capacity with our partners.

 What the heck other concessions could Obama have possibly thought that the Iranians were going to ask for?  Was he worried that he might draw dog sitting duties when Iranian leaders took a vacation?  That is patently the stupidest statement ever uttered by an American President in my lifetime, without question.

I've written previously that on his best day, Obama might be Neville Chamberlain.  In light of this *deal*, I must make a full apology to Chamberlain's corpse and any of his progeny that are still alive.  I could not be more sorry for having drug Neville's name through the mud by comparing Obama to him.  Obama, on his best day, is a terrorist sympathizer who believes that America is the most evil force going.  Further, it is his apparent goal to eliminate the air of American superiority, and indeed, the reality of it as well.

Now that we're kowtowing to terrorist regimes, is there any further we can fall as a nation?

Where Do We Draw the Line At Offensive?

Nearly a month ago, a psychotic, white male killed 9 black parishioners as they worshiped at Emmanual African Methodist Episcopal Church in Charleston, S.C.  It was and is a horrific incident that members of that community will deal with for the rest of their lives.

However, it is also something that raised a couple of interesting ideas, and buried the story that should have been looked at.  What I've seen over the past month is not a focus on the murderer, or the 9 church members whose lives were so callously taken.  No, rather the focus has been on the Confederate flag.  Why?  Because it's offensive and a symbol of oppression.

That's fine, and if state /local governments or citizen groups want to get on with dispensing of the Confederate flag in public areas, that is their prerogative, and they should do it if they feel it is right.

However, the notion of oppression is a bit open-ended, as are the symbols that may represent them.  The swastika is a symbol that is most often associated with Adolph Hitler and the Nazis during WWII era Germany, but it has been around for thousands of years prior to that in a variety of religious uses in a myriad of different religions throughout the world.  By no means am I comparing the Confederate flag with the swastika, but mostly because the Confederate flag (the "battle flag") does not have a history that has anything to do with anything outside of the Confederacy, and the South's attempt to withdraw from the Union.

However, if it's oppressive symbols that hurt people's feelings, or bring about thoughts of former terrible regimes and people who have done harm in the world, what of the Union Jack, the very symbol of our former Colonial ancestors (and current ally) Great Britain?  Others might also argue that the U.S. Stars and Stripes could be labeled as a symbol of oppression as well, if looked at from certain group's perspective.  Should both of those flags be banned within our border, so as to not offend people and remind them of the oppressive regimes who used them as their symbol of power?

More important to me is that real issues are being ignored, while the Confederate flag story is running through state houses and news outlets, littering the landscape with details that are in fact not at all enlightening, nor helpful.  If there are those who think that the Confederacy was right to enslave black Americans, there's not much to be done to help that kind of stupid.  If there are those that observe it as a historical remnant of states fighting for their way of life (however morally reprehensible they may be) and their right to withdraw from the Union, that may not be as offensive, or as stupid as the prior group, but it still may be time for those people to join the 21st century, where states are looking to withdraw from the Union for a host of different reasons that may be looked back on by future generations as equally stupid.

The big problem I have with all of this is how the issue has now become political, in the most negative way possible.  Democrat members of Congress are using the issue as a way to hold up budget battles with Republicans, instead of doing their jobs and looking out for what is best for the American people, and again, no talk is occurring about the shooter, or the victims' families who are dealing with their grief.  Instead, political groups are once again taking a tragedy and couching it in a way to push forth an agenda.  This is wrong, and should not be allowed to occur, but with a complacent media and 'leaders' who care only about their own fortune, that is not what happens here, or anywhere there is a tragedy.

Then there are those who would look to affect even greater gun control laws, in order to make society 'safer'.  Of course, the problem with that is those who would seek to murder in this way are not ones who are going to follow laws.  They'll simply buy their guns illegally, or they'll use other means to create the havoc they are seeking to achieve.

Mira Thompson,  Daniel Simmons, Sr., Clementa Pinckney, Depayne Middleton, Ethel Lance, Susie Jackson, Sharonda Coleman-Singleton, Cynthia Hurd, and Tywanza Sanders all deserve better than that.

The 4th of July, Global Warming, and Other Thoughts

This past Saturday (the 4th of July), I was acting exactly the same as many other Americans - hanging with family and friends, gorging myself on copious amounts of delightful foods, and watching fireworks explode in the night sky.  Here's what was going on in other parts of the world, but close enough to the U.S. to cause concern, or at least it should.

That's right, Russian President was once again testing the limits, and harkened back to Top Gun times by sending a pair of Tupolev Tu-95s (which are capable of carrying nuclear weapons) approximately 55 miles off the coast of Alaska before they were scurried away by the might of two F-16s.  A half an hour after that incident, (11 a.m. ET), another pair of Tupolev Tu-95s were found hanging out off the coast of central CA (again, not within U.S. airspace).  They, too, were sent packing, but it is disconcerting that they were found there, and even moreso given that this occurred just two years ago, on July 4th, 2013.

Then there's ISIS, who of late have been getting their @sses handed to them by ----- and ----- (not so much the U.S., but that's more leadership's fault than that of our hard-working soldiers.), who are still murdering people in new and even more horrific ways than previously done.  These are the people, you'll recall, that Obama infamously called the J.V. team.

Despite those items, and many more that are far too horrific to even let the public know about (Honestly, if these are the things that we know, can you imagine how terrible the things are that are being kept from us?), our *President* has insisted more than once that the greatest threat to our nation and planet is "Global Warming".  He has insisted that the "Science is Proven", and there are a fair amount of sycophants and leeches who are willing to spout the company line, so long as they are kept in federal funding.

Often, views from the opposing side are shouted down because they are considered the 'minority view', or such thoughts would only be spoken by 'climate deniers', something no *true* scientist could ever be charged with.

Imagine my the giddy feeling that coursed through my veins when by happenstance, I stumbled across this article/video.  The speaker is Ivar Giaever, late a member of American Physical Society, until 2011 when he resigned in protest to this statement put forth by the group:

The evidence is incontrovertible: Global warming is occurring.
If no mitigating actions are taken, significant disruptions in the Earth’s physical and ecological systems, social systems, security and human health are likely to occur. We must reduce emissions of greenhouse gases beginning now.

His audience was the 65th Lindau Nobel Laureate meeting, and his statements are huge for several reasons.  First, he is a man who allegedly supported Obama as he campaigned to become President back in 2007 - 08.  Secondly, he is an unquestioned man of science, one whose opinion can not simply be discounted as an example of a 'climate denier'.  Third, it re-opens the debate with regard to what is 'proven' science, and what is still up for grabs.  Most importantly, to me at least, is that it should allow Obama to move on from this topic and get back to what's really important - protecting the American people.

My favorite moments in the video are when espouses the fact that nothing in science is incontrovertible, and making the analogy of Global Warming apologists being a new *religion*.  I enjoyed these points, because they are ones that I have used in debates with members of that particular sect, and now I have a scientist, world-reknown, at that, to back my statements.  It really is exhilarating.  Then there were the moments when he called Obama 'ridiculous' and stated that he was 'dead wrong' on Global Warming.

I might not stop smiling for a week.