Tag Archives: politics

The Truth

Posted on by
Reply

…is beginning to come out.

At a CNN Ohio coal country Townhall involving Progressive-Democrat Party Presidential candidates Hillary Clinton and Senator Bernie Sanders (I, VT), Clinton said, in all seriousness,

I’m the only candidate which has a policy about how to bring economic opportunity using clean renewable energy as the key into coal country, because we’re going to put a lot of coal miners and coal companies out of business.

Her campaign then clarified, in a post-Townhall statement, that her plan “would also safeguard workers’ retirement and health benefits.”  But do nothing about their current jobs so they can get to retirement, apparently.

In an MSNBC-hosted Townhall, Clinton also said this with a straight face:

Now, is Libya perfect? It isn’t.  Libya was a different kind of calculation [from Syria] and we didn’t lose a single person….

Because #FourLivesDon’tMatter.

Hmm….

A Good First Step

Posted on by
Reply

The Obama administration is considering providing an emergency aid package to the cash-strapped Kurdistan Regional Government in Iraq after concluding that the KRG’s inability to pay Peshmerga fighters their salaries poses a threat to the US-led campaign against Islamic State, US officials said.

But we need to do two things more: we need actually to send the aid package (money for wages, food, and fuel for the soldiers)—money—rather than just consider it, and we need to ship them arms and provide the training and logistics with which to use them.  We also need to just do it.  Nominally, we’d need Baghdad’s permission for this, but they’re too slow and too much anti-Kurds for this sort of thing to be forced through the Iraqi government.

We also need to help them learn fiscal discipline; although maybe this administration isn’t capable of that.

Free Speech

Posted on by
Reply

…the way the Left sees it. And too many Republican Presidential candidates are misunderstanding the situation.

Recall last week: Republican Party Presidential candidate Donald Trump was forced to cancel a rally in Chicago because “protestors” were out in force intending to prevent the rally from occurring.  They then bragged loudly about their success.

Over the weekend, at rallies in Missouri, Ohio, and again in Illinois, “protestors” again attempted to prevent Trump rallies from proceeding, charging him on the stage at rallies they couldn’t block.

These are not protestors exercising their own free speech rights; these persons are actively, cynically, dishonestly trying to prevent others from exercising their free speech rights.  These Leftists see freedom to speak as freedom only to speak what the Left approves.  These Leftists see listeners’ free speech not as their own choice, but only the choice to hear what the Left will permit them to hear.

We expect this sort of understanding out of the Progressive-Democrat Party Presidential candidates:

The ugly, divisive rhetoric we are hearing from Donald Trump and the encouragement of violence and aggression is wrong, and it’s dangerous.  …  That’s not leadership.  That’s political arson.

The Left’s encouragement of violence and aggression is, indeed, wrong, and it’s dangerous.  When will Hillary Clinton and Bernie Sanders condemn the Left’s assault on free speech, when will Clinton and Sanders condemn the violence their “protestors” threaten Republican rallies with?

It’s especially disappointing, though, to hear Republican Party candidates choose to attack a fellow Republican for being attacked by this assault on speech, carefully not saying a word about the real assault, the one on Americans’ First Amendment right.  John Kasich, Marco Rubio, and Ted Cruz should know better.

Update: corrected a dumb___ typo.

Responsibility

Posted on by
Reply

In an op-ed about President Barack Obama (D) and Republican Party Presidential candidate Donald Trump, The Wall Street Journal had this citation of Obama’s words when Obama was asked, at a press conference with Canadian Prime Minister Justin Trudeau, about political polarization:

“What I’m not going to do is to validate some notion that the Republican crack-up that’s been taking place is a consequence of actions that I’ve taken,” Mr Obama said.  He explained Mr Trump’s ascent as the result of “the nasty tone of our politics, which I certainly have not contributed to.”

No, Obama has only disparaged our allies:

“When I go back and I ask myself what went wrong [with the Libya intervention],” Obama said, “there’s room for criticism, because I had more faith in the Europeans, given Libya’s proximity, being invested in the follow-up….

Because they didn’t live up to him.

He has only disparaged those who disagree with him, too.  In response to a Republican-led Congressional move to insist on (Syrian) refugees be vetted to screen out as well as possible terrorists among them, Obama had only this:

We are not well served when, in response to a terrorist attack, we descend into fear and panic. We don’t make good decisions if it’s based on hysteria or an exaggeration of risks.

And disparaging Republican concerns with integrity in Washington:

With an endless parade of distractions, political posturing and phony scandals, Washington has taken its eye off the ball….  Short-term thinking and stale debates are not what this moment requires[.]

And because Obama didn’t get his way on gun control:

The gun lobby and its allies willfully lied about the bill….

And because Republicans fought for eliminating Obamacare,

…when Republicans realize they don’t get to hold the entire economy hostage over ideological demands….

And through his Senior White House Advisor Dan Pfeiffer:

We are for cutting spending, we are for reforming our tax code, we are for reforming entitlements,” Mr Pfeiffer told CNN’s Jake Tapper.  “But what we are not for is negotiating with people who have a bomb strapped to their chest.”

In no case did Obama have the intellectual courage or honesty or objectivity to address the arguments.  All he could summon the strength to do was insult the speakers of those arguments.  That’s the Progressive-Democrat Party’s objectivity.  That’s the Progressive-Democrat Party’s intellectual honesty, intellectual courage.  That’s what Progressive-Democrat Party Presidential candidate Hillary Clinton is so desperate to give us four more years of.

Missile Violation?

Posted on by
Reply

Iran has begun launching ballistic missiles as part of their intermediate-range and intercontinental-range ballistic missile development program.  The motorboat skipper who sits in the Secretary of State’s chair insists that these launches, while “inconsistent” with UN requirements, are not actually violations of the recently concluded nuclear weapons deal.

Here’s what that Joint Comprehensive Plan of Action actually says (the document can be seen here and here).

The E3/EU+3 and Iran commit to implement this JCPOA in good faith…and to refrain from any action inconsistent with the letter, spirit and intent of this JCPOA that would undermine its successful implementation.

It’s certainly true, though, that the letter of the agreement does not proscribe ballistic missile development efforts, but such a program plainly is “inconsistent” with JCPOA requirements, central as missiles are for delivery of nuclear warheads.  Such developments, then, are clear violations of the “intent” not to “undermine” the agreement.

As backdrop to these missile test launches, the JCPOA also says this:

The International Atomic Energy Agency (IAEA) will be requested to monitor and verify the voluntary nuclear-related measures as detailed in this JCPOA.

Iran has refused to allow the IAEA to conduct inspections on the military bases that house parts of Iran’s nuclear weapons development program, and it has refused to allow the IAEA to inspect the nuclear reactor at the heart of its program.

And this, buried at the bottom of the first link’s article:

Iranian Revolutionary Guards senior commander was quoted as saying last week that its latest round of missiles were being designed to hit Israel.

Hmm….