The House Of Representatives Gets It Right

The Hill posted a story today about a bi-partisan group in the House of Representatives who have sponsored a bill stating that all trade deals would have to be made publicly available for 60 days before they could be approved using fast-track authority.

The article reports:

“Today it [trade promotion authority (TPA)] has become more of a blank check for the executive and turned Congress into little more than a rubber stamp,” Kaptur said. “This legislation calls for an end to this dangerous and irresponsible approach and replaces it with sunlight in the form of public access and accountability.”

The House is expected to vote on fast-track as early as Thursday, and opponents have argued that the administration is not providing enough transparency on the deals it is negotiating. 

Members of Congress have only been allowed to review text of the emerging Trans-Pacific Partnership (TPP) trade deal in a classified setting. 

Congress has a role to play in reviewing trade deals and treaties. The U.S. Constitution includes that review in its list of Congressional duties. It really is time those in power in Washington began to follow the U.S. Constitution.

It’s Not The Fault Of The American Military

Fox News posted an article today quoting President Obama’s statement that “When a finalized plan is presented to me by the Pentagon, then I will share it with the American people. We don’t yet have a complete strategy.” The statement was made in reference to training Iraqis to fight the Islamic State.

It’s very hard for me not to go totally ballistic on this. Has President Obama forgotten that he ignored the requests of the military to leave American troops there to prevent the takeover of Iraq by Iran (which is essentially what has happened–if we fight against ISIS, we are fighting with Iran)? The American military leaders saw this coming–President Obama chose to ignore their advice. I have no doubt they are continuing to advise the President. I also have no doubt that he is continuing to ignore that advice.

As someone with a family member in the military, I don’t want to see any of our military put in harm’s way unless the rules of engagement are in our favor and unless there is a planned strategy. President Obama’s policies have offered neither.

Military leaders are all about plans for all contingencies and possibilities. President Obama is relying on the ignorance of the American people to avoid taking responsibility for the mess he has made of the Middle East.

Sometimes There Are Just Too Many Unanswered Questions

The Washington Examiner posted an article today about an investigation into why Boko Haram was not placed on the terrorist watch list during the time that Hillary Clinton was Secretary of State.

The article reports:

A conservative group is suing the State Department in an effort to find out whether the agency’s refusal to place Boko Haram on the terrorist watch list while Hillary Clinton was secretary of state had anything to do with the fact that a high-level Nigerian official was a major Clinton Foundation donor and close friend of the former president.

Citizens United, a conservative nonprofit, brought the case to court after the State Department ignored its request for records about the Chagoury Group, a sprawling Nigerian company headed by a Clinton friend and financial supporter of Clinton causes, Gilbert Chagoury.

Chagoury donated between $1 million and 5 million to the Clinton Foundation, donor records show.

More than 30 days have passed since Citizens United first filed the lawsuit without a response of any kind from the State Department.

Somehow, I think that when the truth about some of the donors to the Clinton Foundation during Hillary Clinton’s tenure as Secretary of State is known, the email server is going to be the least of Mrs. Clinton’s worries. There are so many ‘coincidences’ between donations to the Foundation and large speaking fees for President and Mrs. Clinton and actions taken by the State Department that it is obvious that they are not all coincidences.

How Things Work In The Middle East

Today The Blaze posted an article about the rocket attacks on Israel during the past two weeks. Somehow the media and the international community  have remained silent on the issue. Prime Minister Netanyahu pointed out that there will be a lot of media coverage as soon as Israel retaliated–the United Nations and most of the media would come out against Israel.

The article gives a possible explanation for the recent attacks:

The Times of Israel noted that following a Palestinian rocket attack last week, a spokesman for U.N. Secretary General Ban Ki-moon called on “all parties to avoid further escalation and prevent incidents that jeopardize the lives of Israeli and Palestinian civilians.”

…The Saturday night launch was the third rocket attack on southern Israeli communities in the past two weeks.

A radical Salafist terrorist group linked to the Islamic State group took responsibility for two of the rocket firings.

The Times of Israel quoted Israeli military sources who said they suspect Omar Brigades, a Salafist group which views the ruling Hamas as a rival, has launched the rockets in order to provoke an Israeli military response against Hamas targets, and thus weaken its rival.

Note that the U.N. statement does not condemn the actions of the group firing the rocket, it just states that things should not escalate. Until the U.N. and the world community begin to condemn the side initiating the rocket attacks, the attacks will continue. Unfortunately, the world community is enabling a bully to continue attacks and condemning the bullied when they defend themselves.

 

This Might Be Part Of The Problem

Hot Air posted an article today about Social Security Disability payments.

The article reports:

Social Security overpaid nearly half the people receiving disability benefits over the past decade, according to a government watchdog, raising questions about the management of the cash-strapped program.

In all, Social Security overpaid beneficiaries by nearly $17 billion, according to a 10-year study by the agency’s inspector general.

Many payments went to people who earned too much money to qualify for benefits, or to those no longer disabled. Payments also went to people who had died or were in prison.

Social Security was able to recoup about $8.1 billion, but it often took years to get the money back, the study said.

“Every dollar that goes to overpayments doesn’t help someone in need,” said Sen. Chuck Grassley, R-Iowa. “Given the present financial situation of the Social Security Disability Insurance trust fund, the program cannot sustain billions of dollars lost to waste.”

It is time to look into the management of Social Security. This sort of mistake would not be accepted in the private sector; there is no reason it should be accepted in government.

The article concludes:

Here’s an idea. One of the easier changes they could start with is to invest in more investigative resources using their massive government employee payroll and cut out the remaining waste and fraud. While doing their investigations, they could create some sort of code for those with obviously permanent disabilities and stop wasting time chasing them every couple of years. Between those two adjustments they could likely find more legitimate fraud and save money in the long run. We can save the battle over changes to the program until the wolves are truly at the door I suppose.

Today Is The Anniversary Of D Day

Today is the 65th anniversary of the landing on the beaches of France by the Allied Armies.  General Dwight Eisenhower chose to go on that day because the weather reports showed that day as the only possible window in a stormy period.  He met with his troops before the invasion to talk to them and send them off with prayers and well wishes.  He composed a letter to be read in case the invasion failed.  The letter took full responsibility for that failure if it occurred.  Because of the leadership of Dwight Eisenhower and the courage of the American, Canadian, and British troops, we are free today to do our Saturday errands, enjoy our children, and generally live our lives in freedom.

This is the text of the letter General Eisenhower wrote in case the invasion failed:

“Our landings in the Cherbourg-Havre area have failed to gain a satisfactory foothold and I have withdrawn the troops. My decision to attack at this time and place was based upon the best information available. The troops, the air and the Navy did all that Bravery and devotion to duty could do. If any blame or fault attaches to the attempt it is mine alone.”

Just a quick personal note about D Day–my father was one of the soldiers who landed on Utah beach.  He never talked much about his wartime experiences, but there are two things I remember from talking to him.  When the Allied troops landed on Utah Beach, they had been blown off course by the winds and heavy surf.  Because of that, they encountered less resistance from the Germans and were able to more forward more quickly than they might have otherwise moved.  The other thing he mentioned was the total secrecy surrounding the invasion.  There were cardboard tanks placed in England to make it look as if they were going ashore at Calais (which was the closest point to England).  Everything was top secret–but the payday before the invasion, they were paid in French francs!!!

 

Using The Media To Tell A Lie

Yesterday Gateway Pundit posted a story about a recent incident on a United Airlines flight. It involved a Muslim woman who claimed that she was discriminated against and not given a full can of soda because the flight attendant allegedly told her the can could be ‘used as a weapon.’ The flight attendant was disciplined by the airlines for Islamophobic behavior. If you routinely fly airlines in America, you know that the flight attendants are generally very professional and polite, so the story may sound a little odd to begin with. Well, it turns out that the story is a total lie.

The article reports what actually happened as seen by someone else on the plane:

A passenger on the plane says the woman is lying.

A commenter at FlyerTalk has a different take on the story:

I was actually on this flight on Friday evening from ORD to DCA. I have been a reader of this forum for a long time but seeing this all over the news made me sign up so I could tell you what really happened here and hopefully stop this liar in her tracks. I was sitting close enough to her to hear everything that was said. The flight attendant came up to the lady (I believe she even took her order first in the entire cabin as she was seated in the bulkhead 7d) and took her order. She ordered a coke zero and a hot green tea with a Splenda. The flight attendant handed her a full diet coke with a cup on top and then told her that the green tea would take a few minutes and she would get it to her ASAP. The lady said very rudely and condescending to the FA that she ordered a coke zero and basically pushed the soda back to the flight attendant. The FA said she was sorry and attempted to find a coke zero for her (which she did not have many of) and told her that she could only give her a portion of the can not the full can. This is when the lady in question started to freak out and told the FA “What do you think I will use this as a weapon?! Why can’t I have the whole can? I think you are discriminating against me. I need your name….” The lady just kept yelling to her “I need your name… I am being discriminated against.” This is when a few passengers told her to calm down and one guy told her to “shut her mouth and she is being ridiculous over a can of coke”. No one ever said anything anti-Muslim to her at all. She was the one who started screaming discrimination when she did not get what she wanted. The FA asked her numerous times if she would like anything else when the lady just basically pushed her away with a hand in her face. The lady then got onto her phone with her credit card and paid for the internet so she could start spinning this story on social media and she was never in tears. This person is a liar plain and simple and is just pulling the discrimination card.

CAIR activist Tahera Ahmad was the person making the accusation that the flight attendant discriminated against her. It is no coincidence that the claim was made by a CAIR activist. CAIR is the Council on American-Islamic Relations. The organization was named in the Holy Land Foundation Trial as an unindicted co conspirator. It is the legal arm of the Muslim Brotherhood in America. If you look up the government exhibits in the Holy Land Foundation Trial (if they have not been purged from the Internet), you will see CAIR mentioned. There are also a number of articles about the trial on this blog.

Unfortunately Both Political Parties Are Involved In Benghazi

The Republicans control the House of Representatives and the Senate. Therefore,it should be easy to investigate what happened at Benghazi, despite the fact that the Democrats involved are experts at stonewalling. Well, new information that has come to light indicates that part of the problem with the investigation may be that there are also Republicans involved that would like to keep the details of what happened at Benghazi secret.

On Thursday, The Daily Caller posted an article about some new information that has come out as a result of the emails that are finally getting released.

The article reports:

Perhaps most intriguing in the recent email batch is a one-line note to Mrs. Clinton from a top advisor, Deputy Chief of Staff Jake Sullivan. The subject of the September 10, 2011 email is simply “Rogers.” The note in its entirety reads: “Apparently wants to see you to talk Libya/weapons.”

“Rogers” is then-House Intelligence Committee Chairman Mike Rogers, a Republican. The email was unearthed at the deep end of the document dump and first noted in a piece by Catherine Herridge and Pamela Browne of Fox News.

Chairman Rogers and other GOP House committee chairman spent a good deal of time opposing the formation of the Benghazi Select Committee. As Eli Lake reported last year, Rogers “warned his colleagues” about the committee. Lake reported that “the chairmen of the House Intelligence, Armed Services, and Government Reform committees — Reps. Rogers, Buck McKeon, and Darrell Issa, respectively — all opposed the formation of a select committee on Benghazi.”

The story goes on to detail the connection between Representative Rogers and his wife and Benghazi. In 2014, Representative Rogers abruptly resigned from the House of Representative. About the same time his wife left an executive position at Aegis Defense Services, a private defense contractor. This may be totally coincidental, but it illustrates one thing–America has developed a political class that sometimes puts its personal interests ahead of the interests of our country. That is a major problem in our government right now.

Please follow the link above to The Daily Caller to read the entire story. This story is one more example of why term limits are a good idea. There seems to be something in the water in Washington that makes people compromise the principles they claimed to have before they got there. Maybe if we limit their terms of office, the effect of the water will be minimal.

We owe a debt to Representative Trey Gowdy for continuing this investigation despite opposition from his own party.

A Future Presidential Candidate?

Tonight I had the pleasure of hearing Governor Scott Walker speak to a group of North Carolina Republicans. The Governor spoke of the need to select a reformer as our next President. He stated that there are a number of good candidates already vying for the Republican Presidential nomination. The Governor cited his record in Wisconsin–turning a deficit into a surplus, raising the labor participation rate, and lowering unemployment. He has also lowered taxes in the state.

Governor Walker was elected in 2010 and 2014 and defeated an attempt to recall him in 2012. He has stood strong against hardball tactics of the left and been successful in defeating them.

I have not yet decided who I will support in the primary election, but I will definitely consider Scott Walker.

Another Scientific Report To Evaluate

The New York Post posted a story today about a federal report stating that fracking does not harm drinking water. I suspect this is going to be a problem for many environmentalists. It will be interesting to see how they react to the study.

The article reports:

In their report, federal researchers studied the entire fracking process, from the acquisition of water to the disposal of wastewater.

Prompted by Congress, researchers reviewed thousands of pages of studies and conducted their own investigations of fracking, which collects natural gas and petroleum deep below the surface.

“Stated simply, this study follows the water,” Burke said. “We looked at each stage of the hydraulic water fracturing cycle to determine the potential impact on potential drinking-water resources.”

Before releasing the report, the feds sought comment from the public, industry officials, states, Indian tribes and nongovernmental organizations.

The report identified factors to consider: whether an area has enough water for people’s needs as well as fracking; spills; accidental injection into drinking-water sites; well failure; subsurface migration of gases and liquids; and inadequate or poorly treated wastewater.

The American Petroleum Institute, an industry trade group, said the study was a validation of the safety of fracking.

When attempting to evaluate this report, consider the fact that a lot of the anti-fracking movement is funded by OPEC (Organization of the Petroleum Exporting Countries). Obviously they have a vested interest in preventing America from developing her oil resources.

When The Numbers Just Don’t Add Up–Fudge Them Or Ignore Them

This article is based on two stories–one posted by the Daily Caller today, and one posted at wattsupwiththat.com yesterday.

The article at the Daily Caller deals with the increase of ice and the lack of melting ice in Greenland.

The article reports:

But alarmists have been neglecting an inconvenient fact about the polar region: Greenland is seeing healthy levels of ice and record cold temperatures over parts of the polar island.

Northeast Greenland saw its coldest May on record since measurements started back in 1949, and the island as a whole is colder than normal. Nuuk, the capital of Greenland, has also seen its coldest year on record, according to science blogger Steven Goddard.

Greenland is also seeing much less ice melt than normal, according to the Danish Meteorological Institute. Basically, Greenland’s ice sheet has accumulated a lot of ice, but seen little melting this year.

The article at wattsupwiththat is very scientific and illustrates how some global warming supporters (I really can’t call them scientists) have adjusted (redone) the climate data in recent years so that the fact that there has been no global warming in recent years is hidden in the new numbers.

The article concludes:

Comments from Georgia Tech Climatologist Dr. Judith Curry:

The greatest changes in the new NOAA surface temperature analysis is to the ocean temperatures since 1998.  This seems rather ironic, since this is the period where there is the greatest coverage of data with the highest quality of measurements – ARGO buoys and satellites don’t show a warming trend.  Nevertheless, the NOAA team finds a substantial increase in the ocean surface temperature anomaly trend since 1998.

In my opinion, the gold standard dataset for global ocean surface temperatures is the UK dataset, HadSST3.  A review of the uncertainties is given in this paper by John Kennedy http://www.metoffice.gov.uk/hadobs/hadsst3/uncertainty.html.  Note, the UK group has dealt with the same issues raised by the NOAA team.  I personally see no reason to the use the NOAA ERSST dataset, I do not see any evidence that the NOAA group has done anywhere near as careful a job as the UK group in processing the ocean temperatures.

The real bottom line here is that we really don’t know as much as we like to think we do. The impact of man on global climate is unknown, but as much as I hate to admit it, in the grand scheme of things, man really is a very small part.

Social Media Can Have Drastic Consequences

The Daily Caller posted an article about a selfie that went wrong. In this case, wrong is in the eyes of the beholder–I think it went wonderfully right.

The article reports:

The head of Air Force Central Command reported that an online selfie of an Islamic State militant led to airstrikes on a base held by the group “in less than 24 hours.”

Air Force Gen. Hawk Carlisle said in recent remarks that airmen at Florida’s Hurlburt Field were scouring open-source online feeds when they found a photo of “some moron standing at this command” and “bragging about the command and control capabilities” of the group.

Don’t ever post anything on the Internet that you wouldn’t mind seeing on the front page of The New York Times.

Islamic terrorists generally use social media very well. It is one of their prime recruiting tools and is also useful as one of their communication tools. There has been some consideration of making social media unavailable to terrorists, but aside from the obvious problems in doing that, in the case of the terrorist selfie, a terrorist social media post helped the western powers fight terrorism. We need to fight terrorism using every method at our disposal.

How To Create Economic Growth

Yesterday Stephen Moore posted an article at the Wall Street Journal about what has happened in North Carolina since 2013.

The article reports:

Four years ago North Carolina’s unemployment rate was above 10% and the state still bore the effects of its battering in the recession. Many rural towns faced jobless rates of more than 20%. But in 2013 a combination of the biggest tax-rate reductions in the state’s history and a gutsy but controversial unemployment-insurance reform supercharged the state’s economy and has even helped finance budget surpluses.

As Wells Fargo ’s Economics Group recently put it: “North Carolina’s economy has shifted into high gear. Hiring has picked up across nearly every industry.”

The tax cut slashed the state’s top personal income-tax rate to 5.75%, near the regional average, from 7.75%, which had been the highest in the South. The corporate tax rate was cut to 5% from 6.9%. The estate tax was eliminated.

So what happened next? Did the state go bankrupt? Is everyone in the state walking around in rags wondering where their next meal is coming from? Not hardly. On May 6, Gov. McCrory announced that the state has a budget surplus of $400 million.

The article explains:

This is the opposite of what has happened in Kansas, where jobs have been created but revenues have fallen since the top personal income-tax rate was cut from 6.45% in 2012 to 4.6% today and the income tax for small business owners who file as individuals has been eliminated. North Carolina’s former budget director, Art Pope, says one difference between the two states is that “we cut spending too. Kansas didn’t.”

…You won’t hear much about this in national news media, where the preferred story line is that tax cuts don’t work because they were followed by budget deficits in Kansas. In North Carolina, policies to reduce taxes and stop paying people for not working have created jobs and surpluses. Mr. Pope says: “I wish people criticizing Kansas would look at what’s happened here.”

Unfortunately the State of North Carolina has not cut spending as much as some of us would like to see it cut, but we have made progress in the right direction.

For any of you who are still skeptical, this is a picture of the Laffer Curve:

Higher Revenues with Lower Taxes? The Laffer Curve Explained

The bottom line here is very simple–after a certain point, raising taxes is counter productive and will not produce revenue. The best way to increase revenue is to decrease taxes, which stimulates economic activity. As economic activity increases, tax revenue generated as a result of that activity increases. North Carolina has learned that lesson. However, it also helps to reduce government spending–every dollar spent by the government is a dollar taken out of the private sector.

Sometimes There Just Are No Words

Ed Morrissey at Hot Air posted an article today about a recent statement by Maria Harf on the Iranian nuclear negotiations.

On June 1st, the New York Times reported:

With only one month left before a deadline to complete a nuclear deal with Iran, international inspectors have reported that Tehran’s stockpile of nuclear fuel increased about 20 percent over the last 18 months of negotiations, partially undercutting the Obama administration’s contention that the Iranian program had been “frozen” during that period.

The article at Hot Air states that Ms. Hart does not seem to understand the concern:

Pressed by the media for an answer on a New York Times story about the sharp increase in material during the Obama administration’s negotiations, Harf pronounced herself and her team “perplexed” at the concern. “There are some real issues, serious ones that we have to resolve in these talks,” Harf responded yesterday, “but this just isn’t one of them.”

The article includes her entire statement. However, Ed Morrissey has his own summary of Ms. Hart’s statement:

  • The State Department considers concern over a 20% increase in Iranium nuclear stockpiles “absurd”
  • The entire team is “totally perplexed” why the New York Times would report on it
  • However, it’s apparently true, even while being “totally inaccurate,” because it’s “absurd” to think the State Department wasn’t already aware of it
  • Harf keeps repeating herself over and over to convince people that it doesn’t matter

Maybe the problem with the Iranian treaty is not limited to the negotiators.

The Problems With Our Media Are Nothing New

There is an article in the Jewish World Review today dealing with the problem of bias in the American media. I strongly suggest that you follow the link and read the entire article, but there were a few things in the article that jumped out at me.

The article reminds us of some historic media bias:

It is the MSM who ties McCarthy with what Joseph Welch said to him in the Army-McCarthy hearings in 1954 misquoting him as saying, “Have you no shame?” In actually he said. “Have you no sense of decency?” But what really angered Mr. Welch was McCarthy had the audacity to say: ” But in view of Mr. Welch’s request that the information be given once we know of anyone who might be performing any work for the Communist Party, I think we should tell him that he has in his law firm a young man named Fisher whom he recommended, incidentally, to do the work on this Committee, who has been, for a number of years, a member of an organization which is named, oh, years and years ago, as the legal bulwark of the Communist Party, an organization which always springs to the defense of anyone who dares to expose Communists.”

In this case Joe McCarthy was the truth teller and had to be destroyed. So too, was Whittaker Chambers, editor of Time magazine, and a former communist spy who warned of the infiltration of communists in the Washington elite and one of the persons he named was Alger Hiss. He was involved in the establishment of the United Nations both as a U.S. State Department and U.N. official. In February 1945, as a member of the U.S. delegation headed by Stettinius, Hiss attended the Yalta Conference, where the Big Three, Franklin D. Roosevelt, Joseph Stalin, and Winston Churchill, The communist spy was this close to FDR at this important conference and no one bothered to vet him because the media was probably covering for him.

One wonders if the fate of eastern Europe might have been different if the media had chosen to tell the truth. One wonders how many eastern Europeans might have had longer, happier lives. The truth matters.

The article also reminds us:

While the MSM is following Goebel’s propaganda rules, we must remember what he also said about the antidote:

“The lie can be maintained only for such time as the State can shield the people from the political, economic and/or military consequences of the lie. It thus becomes vitally important for the State to use all of its powers to repress dissent, for the truth is the mortal enemy of the lie, and thus by extension, the truth is the greatest enemy of the State.”

The future of our country depends on the truth and it is nowhere to be seen in a lying, stinking media.

Strong words, but unfortunately, true.

 

Facts Are Very Inconvenient Things

The basis for this article is the recent statement by former Presidential advisor David Axelrod that President Obama considers himself “the closet thing to a Jew that has ever sat in this office.” The statement is quoted in a Breitbart.com article dated June 2. If that is true, then he is a Jew that has no understanding of who he is or what Israel is about.

Let’s look at some of President Obama’s recent and past actions.

Yesterday the Los Angeles Times reported:

In an interview with an Israeli television station, Obama noted that his administration has “up until this point” quashed such efforts at the U.N. while insisting that the Israelis and Palestinians must negotiate a resolution. But he said it is a challenge for the U.S. to keep demanding that the Palestinians negotiate in good faith if no one believes the Israelis are doing the same.

The Israelis have not been the ones launching rockets at civilian targets or building terrorists tunnels with money given to them to help their people. Why does the President want to create another terrorist state?

In May of 2011, the New York Times reported:

A day before the arrival in Washington of Prime Minister Benjamin Netanyahu of Israel, Mr. Obama declared that the prevailing borders before the 1967 Arab-Israeli war — adjusted to some degree to account for Israeli settlements in the West Bank — should be the basis of a deal. While the 1967 borders have long been viewed as the foundation for a peace agreement, Mr. Obama’s formula of land swaps to compensate for disputed territory created a new benchmark for a diplomatic solution.

President Obama, you need a history lesson.  There is no 1967 border–there is only an armistice line created after all of Israel’s neighbors invaded her as soon as she became a nation.  The 1949 armistice line was never internationally recognized as a border.  I have posted this before, but it bears repeating. This is the map of the land given to Israel in the original British Mandate:

Palestine was the name given to Israel at that time.  Transjordan was originally to be given to the Jewish state, but Britain reneged on its promise and gave the land to the Arabs instead.  In 1921, the Arab representative responsible for the above division of the land, Emir Feisal, agreed to abandon all claim of his father to Western Palelstine if he secured Iraq and Eastern Palestine as Arab terrorities.  We saw how well he kept this agreement. These are the borders set up for the nation of Israel.  The 1949 borders were simply an armistice.

After the nation of Israel was declared, the Arabs invaded and took control of the Old City of Jerusalem. During the time the Arabs controlled the Old City, Jews were barred from their holiest sites. Unfortunately, past behavior is often an indication of future behavior.

The Gaza Strip is now a terrorist haven. To cede more land to the Arabs would create additional terrorist havens. Mr. President, either you are misinformed or you do not support the survival of Israel.

Making A Deal Is Not Always The Right Answer

John Podhoretz posted an article in Tuesday’s New York Post about the nuclear deal that some western countries are attempting to negotiate with Iran. Unfortunately, President Obama does not seem to be much of a negotiator.

The article reports:

As the June 30 deadline for the Iran nuclear deal approaches, President Obama is putting all his cards on the table — by announcing he is keeping no cards in his hand.

In an astonishing interview with Israel’s Channel 2, the president declared that “the best way to prevent Iran from having a nuclear weapon is a verifiable, tough, agreement.

“A military solution will not fix it, even if the United States participates. It would temporarily slow down an Iranian nuclear program, but it would not eliminate it.”

Why is this astonishing? Because Obama is publicly eliminating any American possibility that we will bomb Iran’s nuclear sites even if the deal in which he has invested so much collapses.

Last week at a Washington synagogue, the President stated, “Iran must not, under any circumstances, be allowed to get a nuclear weapon.” The most recent statement, posted above, contradicts the previous statement.

Unfortunately, the deal that is currently being negotiated will allow Iran to be a nuclear power by 2028. The only way that would not be a problem is if there were a regime change in Iran between now and then. Since the President refused to aid an attempted regime change a few years ago, it is a fairly safe bet that there will not be another attempt (most of the people involved in the previous attempt are either in prison or dead).

Unfortunately, the only way to stop Iran from going nuclear is to bomb its reactors. Since they are building more as we speak and putting them under mountains, that will be a difficult, although not impossible, task. Our best bet would be to give the Israelis the weapons they need and turn them loose. There are a number of other countries in the Middle East that would be grateful to Israel for bombing Iran’s reactors (although they might not be able to say so publicly). Meanwhile, we are faced with a President, desperate for an agreement, who is giving away the store.

Do Public Officials Have The Right To Politically Incorrect Private Opinions?

On Sunday I posted an article about Tammy Covil, a member of the New Hanover County Board of Education (rightwinggranny.com). Mrs. Covil made a statement on a private Facebook page saying that she supported a Biblical view of marriage and of homosexuality. The statement was screen captured by a person who disagreed with her point of view and posted on a Democrat party website. As a result of that posting, some members of the community have called for Mrs. Covil’s removal from office. They have accused Mrs. Covil of discrimination. There is no evidence that Mrs. Covil has discriminated against anyone. In fact, I believe that she is being discriminated against because of the Biblical view that she expressed.

Again, Mrs. Covil is an elected official who expressed an opinion that someone did not agree with. When her current term of office is up, the citizens of New Hanover County will have the opportunity to vote for her or against her. To remove someone from office because of a privately held belief simply because you hold a difference belief seems contrary to the American concept of free speech.

In The End, It All Comes Down To Trust

The Washington Free Beacon today reported that the National Institute for Justice (a group under the Justice Department) has awarded Michigan State University $585,719 to study social media use by “far-right” groups. It would be interesting to know how they define ‘far-right’ groups.

The article reports:

“We will collect posts made in four active forums used by members of the far-right and three from the Islamic Extremist community, as well as posts made in Facebook, LiveJournal, Twitter, YouTube, and Pastebin accounts used by members of each movement,” the grant said.

“The findings will be used to document both the prevalence and variation in the ideological content of posts from members of each movement,” the grant continued. “In addition, we will assess the value of these messages in the social status of the individual posting the message and the function of radical messages in the larger on-line identity of participants in extremist communities generally.”

The project will also “identify the hidden networks of individuals who engage in extremist movements based on geographic location and ideological similarities.”

The results will be used for a public webinar, and for presentations for counterterrorism experts in the United States.

Holder highlighted the study in remarks this February at the White House Summit on Countering Violent Extremism, as an example of the new methods the Justice Department is using to combat terrorist threats.

Holder said the study will “help us develop more effective techniques and partnerships for counter-messaging.”

While the grant does not name the “far-right” groups that would be examined, other federal agencies have devoted their energy to the sovereign citizen movement.

As someone who probably belongs to at least one of the groups I suspect is labeled far-right, I would like to save them some trouble and maybe some money.

I use social media to see pictures of my grandchildren. I also use it to play silly games like Candy Crush and Trivia Crack. I use it to keep track of news events in areas I care about–Common Core in North Carolina and in Massachusetts, the statements of various conservative candidates, and activities of local conservative groups. I also love some of the animal pictures that other people post on Facebook and love the posts from the Wildcat Sanctuary. I also appreciate some of the inspirational things my friends post. I also have Democrat friends who post things. That’s their right as much as it is my right–only no one is investigating their social media habits or auditing their tax returns. Now that I have done some of your research for you, can I have part of the grant?

I write this to make a point. Congress is stalled right now on renewing certain aspects of the NSA Surveillance Program. Do you think if the Obama Administration had behaved better in dealing with its political opposition, people might be more inclined to trust the government?

Is Anyone Buying This ‘Peaceful Purposes’ Claim?

Today’s Washington Free Beacon posted an article about a new addition to Iran’s nuclear program.

The article reports:

Russia announced on Monday that it would start construction this year on a second nuclear plant in Iran, according to regional reports.

Russia’s Rosatom State Atomic Energy Corporation made the announcement early on Monday, stating that it will begin building a second nuclear power plant in Iran’s southern region later this year, according to Iran’s state-controlled Fars News Agency.

Meanwhile, an earthquake struck Monday morning near the site of Iran’s current nuclear power plant in Bushehr, near where the second plant will be built.

The article also reports that under the nuclear agreement reached between Iran and western powers, it is not illegal for Iran to build additional nuclear plants. Then what the heck is the purpose of the agreement?????

The article further reports:

Iranian officials announced in late 2014 that it had already begun the initial stages of construction on at least two nuclear plants in the region. In November, Tehran finalized a deal with Russia to aid in the construction of these plants.

“We have entered the executive phase of the construction of these two nuclear power plants based on the contract signed between Tehran and Moscow in March to construct the plants,” Behrouz Kamalvandi, deputy chief of Iran’s Atomic Energy Agency, was quoted as saying at the time.

If the Senate allows the proposed nuclear agreement with Iran to take effect, we are signing our own suicide agreement as a country. The fact that Iran is continuing to build nuclear plants shows that they have no respect for the spirit of the agreement, whether or not they can legally build the plants.