As the news keeps coming with regard to the horrors of the Iran deal – and the horrors of how Obama and Kerry are conducting themselves – I have no choice but to continue to write on the subject.
This issue remains number one in importance for Israel, and for the Western world. It must be taken with dead seriousness, and yet the the unfolding of revelations has become something of a self-parody. One is tempted to respond, “Nah, this cannot be happening…” But it is.
During a Senate Foreign Relations Committee hearing last week, a mind-boggling issue was raised by Senator James Risch (R-Idaho) and then pursued by Senator Robert Menendez (D-NJ). The question at hand: Does Iran get to collect its own soil samples from the military site at Parchin for analysis by IAEA? Senator Risch’s understanding was that the IAEA will be monitoring Iran’s soil collection by video.
As Fred Fleitz, “a former intelligence analyst experienced in the collection of environmental samples for investigations of weapons of mass destruction,” explained in National Review (emphasis added):
“The revelation that Iran will collect samples concerning its own nuclear-weapons-related activity makes the whole agreement look like a dangerous farce. This is not just an absurd process; it also goes against years of IAEA practice and established rules about the chain of custody for collected physical samples.”
From where I sit, there could have been only one acceptable response by Kerry to these queries on process: “Of course Iran will not collect its own samples.” But instead Kerry let it be known that this issue was covered in a side agreement and was confidential. Would confidentiality be necessary if it were a straight up process structured with integrity and an eye to keeping Iran accountable?
Kerry then followed up with a statement on Friday at the Council of Foreign Relations in NY that was a pathetic mix of attempted intimidation and postured self-pity (All emphasis following here added):
As to intimidation, he said: “[if Congress rejects the Iran agreement] our friends in Israel could actually wind up being more isolated, and more blamed.”
MK Michael Oren (Kulanu) responded thus:
“If American legislators reject the nuclear deal, they will do so exclusively on the basis of US interests. The threat of the secretary of state who, in the past, warned that Israel was in danger of becoming an apartheid state, cannot deter us from fulfilling our national duty to oppose this dangerous deal.”
While Minister Yuval Steinitz (Likud) countered that:
“Israel will make its views clear on the Iranian nuclear issue, which is relevant to its security and its existence, and no one has the authority to intimidate us.” What is more, Steinitz pointed out, objections are not coming exclusively from Israel: “Criticism of the agreement in the United States in general and Congress in particular is due to the serious flaws and loopholes displayed in the deal.”
I have a strong aversion at this point to having Kerry refer to Israelis as “our friends in Israel.” I think not. His statement is a follow-up to an earlier one – that any military action by Israel would be an “enormous mistake.”
But this argument by Kerry as to why Congress had to vote to accept the accord perhaps wins the prize for offensive and ludicrous positions (emphasis added):
“…it would be embarrassing to him and a blow to US credibility on the world stage if Congress rejects the deal.
“It would be a ‘repudiation of President Obama’s initiative and a statement that when the executive department negotiates, it doesn’t mean anything anymore because we have 535 secretaries of state.’
“’I mean please. I would be embarrassed to try to go out. What am I going to say to people after this as secretary of state.’”
Tears out your heart, does it not? The prospect that John Kerry might be embarrassed before the ayatollahs.
For members of Congress not already angry, this statement should make them furious. Kerry is negating the Congressional role mandated by the Constitution, and claiming unilateral prerogative to make earth-shaking agreements. What would he say to people? That the US is a democracy, and has a due process by which he must abide. That it was understood when he got up from the negotiating table that agreements would not be final until after a Congressional review.
Kerry’s attitude here is a reflection of that of his boss. Obama behaves in an autocratic fashion that is not consistent with the role of the president of a democracy.
“A top adviser to Iran’s Supreme Leader Ayatollah Ali Khamenei vowed Saturday that the Islamic Republic would deny International Atomic Energy Agency (IAEA) inspectors any access to the country’s military sites, contradicting remarks by US officials following the signing of a nuclear agreement with Tehran last week.
“’The access of inspectors from the International Atomic Energy Agency or from any other body to Iran’s military centers is forbidden,” Ali Akbar Velayati, Khamenei’s adviser for international affairs, said in an interview with Al-Jazeera satellite TV. Velayati further stressed that the directive will be enforced regardless of interpretations by the P5+1 world powers to the contrary.’”
Two points to make here: First, and most importantly, this signals the futility of striking an agreement with Iran – for Iran will not adhere by it in any event, as its leaders will do as they please.
And then, the refusal to allow inspectors into Iranian military centers rather confirms the charge that at Parchin Iran will be doing its own soil collection.
I want to share here a video of Senator Ted Cruz (R-TX). The Senator was speaking at a rally against the Iran deal – and for the release of American hostages held by Iran – in front of the White House last week and was harassed by leftists calling themselves “Code Pink.” The senator’s method of handling the hecklers is a pleasure to watch – a class act. But I am sharing this because he responds rationally to their charges, and this is precisely what we need: rational answers when all sorts of off-the-mark charges are leveled against those battling the Iran accord.
There is, to provide one example, the charge that those for the accord, which offers a “diplomatic resolution,” are for “peace,” while those against it are “for war.” The critical point that the Senator makes is that peace comes with strength, and that the accord makes war more likely. (More on this below.)
What was left out of mainstream media coverage of this rally was background on who the Code Pink hecklers are. Code Pink is an NGO led by women, which claims to be “pro-peace.”
According to Gateway Pundit:
“Code Pink co-founder Jodie Evans was an early fundraiser and bundler for Barack Obama’s 2008 presidential campaign. Evans has met with several times over the years with President Obama and his most trusted White House adviser Valerie Jarrett. Code Pink has acted as a messenger between terrorists and Obama.
“Code Pink travels to Iran as guests of the regime. Code Pink leaders are regulars on the Iranian government’s PressTV propaganda outlet. Code Pink did Iran’s bidding in an effort to undermine the government of U.S. ally Bahrain in 2012.”
This is information that ought be shared.
Let me close with this outrageous exchange between a journalist and White House spokesman Josh Earnest, held right after that rally (shared by The Gateway Pundit, with my emphasis added):
“Q Secondly, I wondered if you were aware that, just before the briefing, Senator Cruz was across the street at Lafayette Park. It was a protest against the nuclear deal. Among other things, he was very vocal about how, because of the sanctions being lifted eventually, that there would be so much money flowing into the country that the country would use the money to ‘kill Americans.’ Do you have any thoughts about that?
“MR. EARNEST: Well, Anita, I was aware that Senator Cruz was planning to hold a pro-war rally in front the White House today. I didn’t see actually how many people turned out for the rally, but it doesn’t sound like he said anything there that he hasn’t said anywhere else.
“Q Pro-war rally? Is that what you just called it?
“MR. EARNEST: I did.
“Q You have no other thoughts about it?
“MR. EARNEST: I think that pretty much says it all.”
Really low. It is what happens when there is no good argument for a position one has embraced: Rely on insults and innuendoes. Senator Cruz’s rally was NOT “pro-war.”
David Greenfield, writing in FrontPage, described part of the exchange between Cruz and Code Pink – with regard to being “pro-war” – this way:
“One CODEPINK member responded to Cruz by saying that he does not like ‘war mongers’ and asking Cruz, ‘Why are you so aggressively violent?’
“’I recognize that the folks in CODEPINK like to hold up signs saying, “Peace with Iran.” You know who doesn’t reciprocate those views? Iran,’ Cruz said, to cheers.
“’In the midst of this negotiation, the Ayatollah Khamenei led thousands of Iranians in chanting death to America while they burned American flags and Israeli flag,’ Cruz continued to more applause. ‘Iran has stated its objective to murder as many Americans as possible. They are not seeking peace with us.’”
I’ve long known that Daniel Greenfield – who formerly posted as “Sultan Knish” – is an incisive, politically-incorrect, “tell-it-as-it-is” writer. In his latest piece – “Time to Call Obama and Kerry What They Are: Traitors” – he does not disappoint.
Credit: FrontPage Magazine
Greenfield is not one to dance around reality, excusing Obama as someone who just doesn’t get it, or who is too idealistic, or… He presents facts straight on, and draws his conclusions (emphasis added):
“The last time a feeble leader of a fading nation came bearing ‘Peace in our time,’ a pugnacious controversial right-winger retorted, ‘You were given the choice between war and dishonor. You chose dishonor, and you will have war.’ That right-winger went on to lead the United Kingdom against Hitler.
“The latest worthless agreement with a murderous dictatorship is being brandished by John Kerry, a man who instinctively seeks out dishonor the way a pig roots for truffles…
“John Kerry betrayed his uniform and his nation so many times that it became his career. He illegally met with the representatives of the North Vietnamese enemy in Paris and then next year headed to Washington, D.C. where he blasted the American soldiers being murdered by his new friends as rapists and murderers ‘reminiscent of Genghis Khan’…
“Kerry revolted even liberals with his gushing over Syria’s Assad. Now he’s playing the useful idiot for Assad’s bosses in Tehran.
“For almost fifty years, John Kerry has been selling out American interests to the enemy. Iran is his biggest success. The dirty Iran nuke deal is the culmination of his life’s many treasons.
“It turns America from an opponent of Iran’s expansionism, terrorism and nuclear weapons program into a key supporter. The international coalition built to stop Iran’s nukes will instead protect its program.
“And none of this would have happened without Obama.
“Obama began his rise by pandering to radical leftists on removing Saddam. He urged them to take on Egypt instead, and that’s what he did once in office, orchestrating the takeover of the Muslim Brotherhood in Egypt and across the region. The Muslim Brotherhood was overthrown by popular uprisings in Egypt and Tunisia, but Obama had preserved the Iranian regime when it was faced with the Green Revolution. Now Iran is his last best Islamist hope for stopping America in the Middle East.
“Obama and Kerry had both voted against designating Iran’s IRGC terrorist ringleaders who were organizing the murder of American soldiers as a terrorist organization while in the Senate…
“Throughout the [negotiating] process they chanted, ‘No deal is better than a bad deal.’ But their deal isn’t just bad. It’s treason.
“Obama isn’t Chamberlain. He doesn’t mean well. Kerry isn’t making honest mistakes. They negotiated ineptly with Iran because they are throwing the game. They meant for America to lose all along.
“When Obama negotiates with Republicans, he extracts maximum concessions for the barest minimum. Kerry did the same thing with Israel during the failed attempt at restarting peace negotiations with the PLO. That’s how they treat those they consider their enemies. This is how they treat their friends.
“A bad deal wasn’t just better than no deal, it was better than a good deal.
“Obama did not go into this to stop Iran from going nuclear. He did it to turn Iran into the axis of the Middle East.
“Obama made this deal to cripple American power in the Middle East.
“Iran get[s] to keep its nuclear facilities, its reactors, including the hidden underground fortified Fordow facility which Obama had repeatedly stated was, ‘inconsistent with a peaceful program.’
“The deal gives Iran a ‘peaceful’ nuclear program with an equally peaceful ballistic missile program. It puts into place a complicated inspection regime that can be blocked by Iran and its backers. It turns Iran into the new North Korea and the new Saddam Hussein, lavishing money on it while running future administrations through a cat and mouse game of proving violations by the terrorist regime.
“And Obama made sure the Iran deal was written to make the proof as hard to obtain as possible.
“That hasn’t stopped Obama from lying and claiming that ‘Inspectors will have 24/7 access to Iran’s nuclear facilities.’ Meanwhile France’s Foreign Minister, somewhat more accurately put it, ‘The IAEA will be able to gain access to Iran’s military sites, if necessary, under certain conditions’…
“One of the first items on Iran’s shopping list will be Russia’s S300 missile system to keep Israel or a future American administration from taking out Iran’s nuclear program. But Iran is also pursuing ICBMs that can strike at Europe and America. Obama’s decision to phase out the ballistic missile sanctions on Iran will make it easier for Iran to build weapons that can destroy major American cities.
“And Iran’s new cash will empower it to fund terrorism in Israel, America and around the world.
“Obama claims to ‘have stopped the spread of nuclear weapons’ by allowing Iran to keep enhancing its nuclear program and rewarding it with ballistic missiles for its ‘peaceful’ intentions. He claims to have negotiated ‘from a position of strength and principle’ when in fact he surrendered to the Iranians on position after position. Tehran negotiated from strength and principle. Obama sold out America…
“Obama and Kerry have not made this deal as representatives of the United States, but as representatives of a toxic ideology that views America as the cause of all that is wrong in the world. This is not an agreement that strengthens us and keeps us safe, but an agreement that weakens us and endangers us negotiated by men who believe that a strong Iran is better than a strong America…
“Their ideology is not America. It is not American. It is the same poisonous left-wing hatred which led Kerry to the Viet Cong, to the Sandinistas and to Assad. It is the same resentment of America that Obama carried to Cairo, Havana and Tehran. We have met the enemy and he is in the White House.”
I’m not going to pursue a great deal of analysis now on how the Israeli government will make the case against this deal, or how Congress is likely to vote. It’s too soon for that. But this must be shared, immediately:
“Aside from removing UN conventional arms embargo on Iran after five years, the nuclear deal signed Tuesday by the P5+1 powers and Iran grants several other questionable concessions to the leading state sponsor of terror, unrelated to its controversial nuclear program.
“The most glaring of these concessions is seen by some as the inclusion of the name Qassem Soleimani on a list of companies and individuals who will have sanctions against them removed as expressly detailed in the deal, reports Yedioth Aharonoth.
“Someimani is the Iranian Revolutionary Guards commander who leads the elite Qods Force, which conducts foreign operations outside of Iran’s borders and directs the Islamic regime’s terrorist activities throughout the world.
“While no clear reason was given as to why Soleimani – who is on the official American terrorist list, and whose Qods Forces have murdered American soldiers in Iraq – had individual sanctions against him removed, the move apparently comes due to the shared fight against Islamic State (ISIS) that Soleimani has been leading in Iraq in parallel to American efforts.
“Indicating the willingness to bend on principles in order to secure an Iranian alliance against [ISIS], US President Barack Obama was revealed to have sent secret letters last October to Iranian Supreme Leader Ayatollah Ali Khamenmei asking for cooperation against ISIS, in addition to asking for help in sealing the nuclear deal.
“Thanks to the removal of sanctions, the arch-terrorist Soleimani will now be able to travel freely throughout the world, advancing Iran’s terror interests.”
If there is a glimmer of positive news here, it is that Prime Minister Netanyahu and head of the opposition Yitzhak Herzog have agreed that on the Iran issue it is important to show a united front:
Credit: Nati Shohat/Flash90
Here we have incisive cartoon commentary from Ya’akov Kirschen, creator of Dry Bones:
I want to remind my readers in America how much depends on you. You must stand up and be counted in the course of the next 60 days, with regard to your opposition to the Iran deal. The situation is deadly serious and passivity is not an acceptable option.
For those in the NY area:
Watch for rallies in other parts of the country, as well.
EMET – The Endowment for Middle East Truth – which does lobbying in Congress, is urging contacts with Senators and Congresspersons. You are being asked by EMET to fill out a form that will allow them to arrange crucial meetings in the Capitol.
For days, I have delayed writing because the situation regarding negotiations with Iran has been so much in flux. I was waiting, waiting, for some outcome or closure. My own feeling for some time has been that there is the possibility that there will be no deal, as the Iranians in the end might balk at signing.
No deal would be the best we might hope for now. Great damage has already been done. But at least this way, Obama’s insanity would be exposed and he wouldn’t be able to claim “victory.” And then, if/when Israel were to attack Iran, there would be no charge that an agreement that would have brought “peace” had been sabotaged.
In truth, the Iranians pretty much have what they want already – insofar as much sanction relief has been provided upfront, European nations are clamoring to trade, and the international community has conceded the Iranian “right” to operate centrifuges. Why mess things up by signing an agreement that calls for inspections, however limited, or other controls?
The problem, of course, is that, while Iran hasn’t come to terms with signing, neither have the mullahs said negotiations were at an end. They have been willing to play the game, on and on and on, all the while advancing their nuclear agenda.
While the American administration – in spite of Kerry’s feeble claims that he wouldn’t stay at the table forever – has been reluctant to be identified as the party that called an end to proceedings. Then, of course, the Iranians would charge that it was the US that was refusing to cooperate on a deal.
Thus have the negotiations gone past one deadline after another. I came to refer to this process, in my own head, as “faux negotiations.” These are not legitimate negotiations, for there is no real give-and-take.
This is how journalist Daniel Greenfield described the situation in “Obama’s Infinite Nuclear Deadlines for Iran” (emphasis added):
“’We are certainly not going to sit at the negotiating table forever,’ John Kerry said. That was last year around the time of the final deadline which had been extended from July 2014.
“’New ideas surfaced’ in the final days, he claimed and ‘we would be fools to walk away.’ That’s also the theme of every sucker caught in a rigged card game, MLM scheme and Nigerian prince letter scam.
“Smart people walk away after getting cheated. Only fools stay.
“The final deadline was extended to March. White House spokesman Josh Earnest said in March that, ‘I think it’s fair to say that we’ve reached our limit, right now, in as far as the conversations have been going on for more than a year.’
“The March deadline was extended until the end of June.
“Earnest said earnestly that the Obama Squad was ready to walk away even before June 30. An official claimed, ‘No one is talking about a long-term extension. No one.’
“The Iranians had a good laugh and sent the US negotiators out to fetch them some coffee and smokes.
“…But Kerry was almost coherent compared to European Union foreign policy chief Federica Mogherini who stated that, ‘We are continuing to negotiate for the next couple of days. This does not mean we are extending our deadline.’
“When you don’t treat a deadline as final, that means it’s being extended. A deadline that isn’t kept, isn’t a deadline. It’s an ex-deadline pining for the peaceful Iranian fjords.
“But Federica explained that the deadlines weren’t being extended, they were being ‘interpreted… in a flexible way.’ A flexible deadline is a good metaphor for the Obama negotiating posture.
“If the negotiators can’t even make one of many deadlines stick, who really believes they’ll stand their ground on nuclear inspections or sanctions snapback?…
“…Obama’s people have admitted that they will negotiate until doomsday. And doomsday is likely to be the date that Iran detonates its first bomb.
“…The deadline concession officially puts Iran in the driver’s seat.”
And so… yesterday it was announced that a deal was very imminent and would likely be announced on Monday. (Monday midnight – tonight – is the latest deadline.) Hearts sank, stomachs clenched, at this possibility.
But here it is, Monday evening, and still no deal. AP, reporting this afternoon, says a deal is still elusive (emphasis added):
“Disputes over attempts to probe Tehran’s alleged work on nuclear weapons unexpectedly persisted at Iran nuclear talks on Monday, diplomats said, threatening plans to wrap up a deal by midnight…
“The diplomats said two other issues still needed final agreement — Iran’s demand for a lifting of a U.N. arms embargo and its insistence that any U.N. Security Council resolution approving the nuclear deal be written in a way that stops describing Iran’s nuclear activities as illegal…”
The UN arms embargo has to do with conventional weaponry and impinges directly on Iranian plans for hegemony in the region. But it has implications even beyond this. As Andrew Bowen writes, in “Give the Mullahs Ballistic Missiles?” (emphasis added):
“Ending an arms embargo on Iran will only destabilize the Middle East and threaten U.S. national security…
“Advocates of this policy have three main arguments.
“First, that the U.S. shouldn’t get preoccupied by this small snag…
“Second, Washington’s concessions on the embargo aren’t a big deal because these negotiations are focused on Iran’s nuclear program…
Finally, there’s a claim that Iran simply needs advanced weapons to help defeat ISIS in Iraq and Syria….
“Matthew McInnis, a Resident Fellow at the American Enterprise Institute and a former senior expert on Iran at the CENTCOM, argues, ‘these are all red herrings. They distract from Iran’s real threat to U.S. national security interests: an unfettered Iranian armed forces’…
“It is one of the great ironies with this potential deal that in trying to constrain Iran’s nuclear program for ten to 15 years, we may actually help create an Iranian military that puts the lives of American sailors, soldiers, and airmen at serious risk.”
Omri Ceren’s observations on this:
“…it just doesn’t seem possible that the Americans can give ground on this. What’s the sales pitch to Congress going to be? ‘Not only are we giving Iran $150 billion to bolster its military, but we’re also lifting arms restrictions to make it easier for them to buy next-generation cruise missiles they’ll use against the U.S. military and our allies.’
“…yes of course lifting the arms embargo would detonate American national security…
“…If Kerry agrees to drop the arms embargo, it’s difficult to see Congress accepting the agreement. If Kerry gets the Iranians to give up on the demand, Congress will want to know what he had to trade away to do it.”
But (see below), Khameini is saying all his red lines have to be met, if there is to be an agreement. If the Americans cannot accept it, is this a genuine sticking point? Or, if they do, the kiss of death in Congress?
Whatever the case, it is imperative that all Americans be aware of what is going on here, and hold Congress accountable.
Perhaps by midnight tonight there will be a deal. But do not count on it. There is talk of extending negotiations into Tuesday. In fact, there are reports that hotel rooms have been booked again in Vienna by the US delegation.
While Iranian media outlet PressTV cites Iran’s nuclear negotiator Abbas Araqchi (emphasis added):
“…certain issues still remain. As long as these issues are not settled, one cannot say we have reached an agreement. I cannot promise that the issues will be resolved by tonight or tomorrow night.”
If there is a deal, it will be the stuff of nightmares, beyond horrific.
Yesterday we saw photos of the overwhelming crowds in the streets of Tehran, waiting to celebrate the agreement. Horrendous.
Hey folks, if the Iranians are that pleased, something is very very wrong.
According to the semi-official news agency Fars, the anticipated agreement complies with all the “red lines” set out by Supreme Leader Ayatollah Khamenei.
Khamenei had put forth these “red lines” last month, in talks with Iranian president Rouhani.
Providing a somewhat different take, a Khamenei advisor, going by the name Velayati, has tweeted that: “Any deal in Vienna will be provisional, subject to approval by ‘Supreme Guide.’”
Also a signal of something very wrong is the readiness of the Obama administration to continue negotiations even as Khamenei calls for a continuing struggle with the US – which he refers to as an “arrogant power” – regardless of what deal is signed.
Last Friday, in Tehran, “Al Quds Day” was observed by crowds of tens of thousands shouting, “Down with America,” “Death to Israel.”
Not even the specter of a burning American flag prompted Obama or Kerry to protest, or gave them pause regarding the wisdom of the negotiations.
Prime Minister Netanyahu has made it clear again and again that Israel will not be bound by a bad deal with Iran. Yesterday at the weekly Cabinet meeting, he showed a video of President Clinton, in which he praised a nuclear deal with North Korea, which would make the world safer. We all know how that turned out.
In an interview with The Times of Israel yesterday, Dr. Dore Gold, who is currently serving as Director-General of the Foreign Ministry, let it be known that (emphasis added):
“Israel won’t be shy about making its views on the Iran deal heard on Capitol Hill…While Israel needs to express its concerns with civility, he stressed, the government is gearing up to firmly advocate its position in discussions with all the relevant players in the US government. ‘We’ll do it respectfully, but we have to tell the truth,’ he said.”
Reports The Times:
“According to other Israeli diplomats, never before has a Foreign Ministry director-general been as close to the prime minister as Gold is to Benjamin Netanyahu, who also happens to be serving as interim foreign minister. Unlike his predecessors, Gold, who immigrated to Israel in 1980, can pick up the phone and call Netanyahu at any time. It is quite clearly Gold, rather than Deputy Foreign Minister Tzipi Hotovely, who is calling the shots in Israel’s diplomacy, these diplomats say, acting as Netanyahu’s trusted emissary.”
“’The story of Iran’s nuclear capability is not over,” said Gold, the author of a 2009 book on the Iranian regime’s bid for the bomb.
“…he hailed Netanyahu, whom he has advised since the mid-90s, as the courageous defender of the entire region, single-handedly bearing the burden of opposition to a deal that all Sunni states loathe but don’t dare to publicly criticize.
“’They can afford a strategy of silence when there is one player in the region who is defending not just itself but the entire Middle East,’ Gold said. ‘When Prime Minister Netanyahu stands up and attacks Iran, he’s not just defending Israel. He’s defending Egypt, Saudi Arabia, the United Arab Emirates, Jordan and all the other Sunni countries.’”
Gold’s role here is important not only because of his close relationship with Netanyahu. It is also because he carries a certain prestige as an academic, author and diplomat.
Credit: Flash 90
In truth, we do not yet know how this will play out.
Every week on Monday morning, the Council and our invited guests weigh in at the Watcher’s Forum with short takes on a major issue of the day, the culture or daily living. This week’s question: Is it Time To Replace The GOP? Would You Support A New Party?
The Noisy Room: I am very close to that pivot shift. The tipping point for me will be the nomination for 2016. If a true conservative does not clinch the nomination due to RINO machinations, then I will swing to a Third Party, consequences be damned. There will be those who say, if you do that, Hillary Clinton is assured the ascendency. My reply to that is if someone such as Jeb Bush is nominated, Hillary Clinton or the likes of Bernie Sanders will win anyway and we have nothing to lose anymore. I truly believe if a candidate such as Ted Cruz is forced to run on a Third Party ticket, he stands an excellent chance of winning – barring voter fraud and being assassinated by the powers-that-be.
I believe a new Civil Rights movement has just been born out of this week’s Supreme Court rulings. The end of our Constitutional government is upon us with lawless rulings from the bench and the dissolution of the three branches of government into one monstrously corrupt executive behemoth. Leaders will now rise in that movement and Ted Cruz will almost certainly be one of them. He is one of the few with the stones to stand and tell it like it is. He is also a master debater and won’t be silenced. I am joining with other Constitutionalists out there such as Trevor Loudon, James Simpson, Cliff Kincaid, Wild Bill, the Black Robe Regiment and many, many others calling for civil resistance. We will not comply. A third party could very well be at the forefront of the resistance. As Daniel Greenfield of Sultan Knish penned it, be the best saboteur you can be.
The Independent Sentinel: I always said that I would wait until 2016 to give up on Republicans and I would prefer to do that. They are our only hope and they haven’t had the majority they need to overrule Barack Obama on anything except those bills that liberals like.
Oddly, when the Democrats held power, they got what they wanted and now that they don’t hold power, they get what they want. The establishment refuses to use the power of the purse. It appears that the Republican establishment is too weak-willed to fight back, think keeping their jobs is the prime objective, or maybe they are just as liberal as the Democrats.
The establishment is now punishing Conservatives who do what their constituents want over their demands. We see Mitch McConnell ripping into the Confederate flag instead of telling people that flag was a creation of the Democratic party. The list of unappealing Republican establishment responses is endless.
If they don’t cut it out and if they shove a RINO down our throats, then I will join any reasonable movement to start a third party.
JoshuaPundit: I’ve done a lot of thinking about this one, especially as I saw the reaction from all sides to this weeks’ events.
I am by no means a die hard Republican, but I am loyal to certain principles they supposedly represent. I actually hoped that after they won control of congress, we would finally see them do as they promised and uphold those principles again. But we were simply lied to.
I no longer feel it is possible to hijack or take control of the GOP. My own feeling is that this Regime’s unprecedented NSA spying and secret data collection unearthed things certain congressmen, government figures and even perhaps a Supreme Court Justice or two desperately want hidden. After all, this president has used these tactics before, and that kind of leverage would certainly account for his aggressive attitude since the midterms. Whether it’s that or simple cowardice or avarice, it doesn’t matter.
I also no longer see waiting around until 2016 as an option. The time to organize is now, a year and a half before the elections so that cohesive principles can be agreed on, strategy plotted out and lines of communication opened. We need to act to secure the liberty of ourselves and our prosperity, rather than once again depending on the Republican Party (or the Democrats, for that matter) to do it for us.
Doing so gives us a much larger, united seat at the table. And it provides a framework for something new and badly, badly needed.
And another thing to consider… we may need that unity and that structure before 2016. These recent decisions have quite a bit of teeth in them and the way they’re certain to be enforced by the Obama Administration is pretty clear, at least to me.
Laura Rambeau Lee, Right Reason: Those of us who actually care enough about our country to follow politics have come to the realization that both the Democrat and Republican Party no longer represent the American people. Unfortunately, while we grew up, went to work, raised our families, and pursued our personal version of the American Dream, the “trusted servants” we elected to protect our rights and interests were pursuing their own agendas. When we finally realized what was happening we got involved and worked very hard to get professed “conservative” Republicans elected, only to be bitterly disappointed once they took office.
We now know that no one, or very few, of our elected officials are working and looking out for our interests. The Democrat Party has been infiltrated with progressives bent on destroying everything that has made America great, in particular the middle class. The Republicans are no better, beholden to big corporations and bankers, also at the expense of the middle class. The government has become a massive wealth redistribution machine through the confiscatory theft of our hard earned wages via numerous tax and regulatory policies.
After last week’s Supreme Court decisions, it has become even more apparent that activist judges allow their political leanings to color their decisions instead of considering the cases before them with strict scrutiny and interpretation of the Constitution. We are no longer a nation that follows the rule of law or respects the will of the people or state’s rights.
We do need a third party and I would support one. The question is do we have enough time to turn everything around, and who would stand for us and be our voice.
Bookworm Room: To put it bluntly, I think that the Republican Party sucks eggs. It does not represent conservatives. Instead, as James Taranto long-ago said, it represents Leftists who have a slight edge on Democrats when it comes to fiscal conservativism. The GOPers are on board with every single Progressive idea — they just think that we ought to be a little more responsible about paying as we travel down The Road to Serfdom.
Having said that, I think true conservatives lack the critical mass to create a meaningful third party, especially with a pivotal election less than a year and a half away. Moreover, in this technologically driven age, the Republican Party has the infrastructure, and that’s something that can’t quickly be replicated either.
What I’d like to see is a coup without the Republican Party. Not having previously been of a revolutionary frame of mind, I’m not quite sure how to go about doing this, but I would certainly begin with fighting vigorously in the Republican primaries to destroy every RINO, starting with Boehner and McConnell.
Interestingly, an idea that has been picking up more and more traction in the comments section at my own blog is the feeling that, true to his Chicago roots, Obama has been blackmailing people like Boehner, Roberts, and McConnell. Indeed, my readers feel that the prosecution against Hastert was a little warning to all three of them to toe the Obama line with both the trade deal and the Obamacare ruling.
I have to admit that this idea, crazy though it is, seems more and more feasible lately. It certainly explains a lot of the insanity going on at the highest level of Republican governance, including Trey Gowdy’s peculiar inept and slow Benghazi investigation.
It was Sherlock Holmes who said when you have eliminated the impossible, whatever remains, however improbable, must be the truth. Either that, or I’m getting even more crazy than the Leftists.
The Glittering Eye: In political science there’s something called “Duverger’s law”. That’s the observed tendency of all non-proportional representation, “first past the post” representative democracies to become two party systems. The implication is that any third party is strictly a temporary phenomenon–it won’t be able to stay around long enough to gain any real influence. Add to that the reality that when the electorate is closely divided between the two surviving parties a third party tends to throw elections towards the party it is least like and you’ve got a pretty substantial argument against a third party.
Forty-five years ago I read a very interesting history of the New York State Conservative Party that outlined the circumstances peculiar to New York that made its creation a sensible move and articulated the party’s role: to nudge the Republican Party, in New York at the time very much more liberal than it is now (remember John Lindsay?), in a direction more to its liking. Unless and until we go to a proportional representation system that’s the role I’d see for any third party and I think the Tea Party is filling that role pretty effectively for the Republicans.
Don Surber: Meh.
Ask Marion: It is absolutely time for the GOP to go, as did the Whig party, whom they replaced!
The GOP leadership has stabbed their base, as well as the American people in general, in the back and has sold out to the ruling elite, as have the Democrats. For anyone who doubts that or does not keep up with the day to day treachery in Washington, D.C. please read: The Time For Changing Is Now. The time for change ”is” now, and in order to save America and what freedoms we have left, the change must take place swiftly in the form of not a 3rd party but rather a new replacement party, nullifying the GOP.
The creation of a 3rd party while leaving the GOP in place would just weaken the ability of average Americans to fight for and win back what the Constitution gives us. A new party must replace the Republican party. It is something I have fought supporting for a long time, but the past couple of weeks have proven that we cannot wait any longer.
As Sarah Palin said when she was asked this same question. “;I do not wish to leave the Republican Party, but if they leave me…?!?” Well their leadership seems to be leaving all of us, leaving me no choice but to support a new party to replace them!
Wolf Howling: It is time for a lot of things. One is a complete restructuring of our completely out of control courts. Two is a requirement that no regulation pass into effect until voted on by our elected representatives As to time for a third party, under normal circumstance, the answer would be a resounding yes. The Republican hierarchy are leading the way in enacting Obama’s second term agenda. Having voted Republicans into office in what was a historic wave election, they promptly rolled over and played dead. It is long past time for a third party. Our current crop of Republican congresscritters, as currently constituted, are a fifth column.
That said, we are on the knife’s edge of being so far transformed by Obama and the left, that to support a third party now would be to kiss America – the America envisioned by our Founders and written into our Constitution – goodbye forever. We need to vote for the most conservative candidate – and that appears to me to be either Ted Cruz or Carly Fiorina. We then have to hope against hope that it actually makes a difference in the direction our country is headed.
Well, there you have it.
Make sure to tune in every Monday for the Watcher’s Forum. And remember, every Wednesday, the Council has its weekly contest with the members nominating two posts each, one written by themselves and one written by someone from outside the group for consideration by the whole Council. The votes are cast by the Council and the results are posted on Friday morning.
It’s a weekly magazine of some of the best stuff written in the blogosphere and you won’t want to miss it.
By: Daniel Greenfield
1. There is no conservative party
There is a Republican Party. The purpose of the party and its politicians, much like that of its Democratic counterpart, is to obtain money and privileges for its major donors. That doesn’t mean that its members don’t have other ideals and agendas, but Republican politicians who rise high enough come from an urban and suburban establishment that is more liberal than its base.
Expecting them to care as much about your issues as you do is unrealistic.
They will only do the right thing insofar as it helps them
A. Get control of money
B. Advance their careers
C. Become popular
And this is a good thing. It means that they’re controllable. It means that the Democrats are also controllable. And this is how the left took over the Democratic Party.
The only way to interact with the large body of politicians is through the carrot and the stick. The “destructive” Republican saboteurs the establishment complains about, whatever their motives, are serve as the stick, undermining and sabotaging efforts to conduct business as usual.
The only way conservatives can get anything done now is by threatening business as usual.
Washington D.C. is never going to be the solution, but to the extent that its business as usual is threatened, sabotaged and held hostage, it will have trouble putting its boot on ordinary people. Until the Republican establishment changes its ways, populist saboteurs are the best conservative weapon.
Don’t expect them to do the right thing. Don’t be disappointed when they don’t. And certainly don’t expect them to solve all this.
The only way they will ever do the right thing is if you have leverage over them.
2. Fight the small stuff
You don’t have to think in terms of a national movement. You don’t even have to think in terms of an organization. Those are things that we need, but you can fight the left in small ways at home.
I’m not talking about Sign X or donate to Y.
Just obstruct any liberal initiative, policy or program in your community. It doesn’t matter what. It doesn’t matter if it’s innocuous. It doesn’t matter if you agree with it.
Undermine it on principle. If you can, vote it down. Encourage others to vote it down. If you can’t, look for ways to tie it in red tape by attaching other agendas to it.
The left wins its biggest victories at the planning stage. Its activists come early and stay late. They propose their plans, rig meetings, use kids and the elderly as human shields, and get their way. They are not used to any real opposition. Particularly the kind that doesn’t bluster, but finds ways to tie their proposals in knots, to make them expensive and drag them out as long as possible.
Oppose them when you can. Concern troll them when you can’t.
If you don’t have that kind of position, think of the origins of the term ‘sabotage’. Workers threw their shoes into machines and stopped the machine. Don’t do anything illegal. Don’t do anything that will get you fired.
But if you have the opportunity to make a liberal program work badly, if you have a legal way to put more stress on it, to tie up the energy and time of the people running it, to make it worse… do it.
We’re the underdogs. We’re the political guerrillas. This is not our system. It’s their system.
Our job is to make it run as badly as possible.
Henry David Thoreau wrote that there’s always injustice in government just as there’s always friction in a machine. It’s when injustice becomes dominant in government, then friction has its own machine.
The left’s friction is now the machine. Get your shoes in the machine. It already runs badly, make it run worse. It already costs too much, make it cost more. You are now the friction. With enough friction, the machine breaks down.
That’s part of what the left did to us. It dragged down our government and culture. It poked a thousand holes in everything. It made it too tiresome and wearying to go on doing this and that. Morale withered, confidence broke down and the left took over.
Now it’s their turn to be on the receiving end.
I’m not going to give the Mario Savio speech…
“There’s a time when the operation of the machine becomes so odious, makes you so sick at heart that you can’t take part! You can’t even passively take part! And you’ve got to put your bodies upon the gears and upon the wheels, upon the levers, upon all the apparatus — and you’ve got to make it stop! And you’ve got to indicate to the people who run it, to the people who own it — that unless you’re free the machine will be prevented from working at all!”
That’s for younger people. It’s for a mass movement.
But you can wear down the machine in a thousand different ways without risk. You don’t have to throw your bodies on the gears. You just have to be a wholly legal burden on it and a pain in the ass of the people running it… and especially the people planning it.
The big stuff begins with the little stuff. When you fight the little stuff, the big stuff starts breaking down.
3. Deny legitimacy to the system
Liberals like to crow that ObamaCare is the law of the land. Now it’s gay marriage. Tomorrow it’ll be a ban on the Dukes of Hazzard.
All that implies legitimacy, order, a legal system. And that’s not what we have.
What we have is a Supreme Court and a White House that acts with brazen illegality. ObamaCare was illegally passed. It was illegally preserved.
No matter how many judges sign off on it, it has no legitimacy. It will never have any legitimacy.
America is built on the simple premise that no system can be more legitimate than its natural laws and founding premises. It does not matter how many judges or politicians try to suspend the First or Second Amendments. All they are doing is removing their own legitimacy.
When a system acts illegally, then its dictates are not the law of the land, they are the law of force.
ObamaCare is coercion. Forcing people to participate in gay marriages is coercion. The FHA ruling is coercion. We may be compelled into compliance, but compulsion is all it is. It isn’t law or justice.
The distinction is important.
Not only is the system illegitimate, but it is also inconsistent, though it claims there is equality under the law, is favors some at the expense of others.
The system is not only illegal, it is also hypocritical and corrupt. That must be emphasized at every turn.
Liberals maintain a narrative that their way is the inevitable path of progress. We know the truth. Their way has been tried and it failed a thousand times. The only thing inevitable is their eventual failure. Their systems will always be abusive, dishonest and corrupt.
They will always turn undemocratic no matter how they start out. They will always turn to coercion.
When we act and when we talk it is vitally important that we distinguish between the legitimate laws we follow and the illegitimate laws we comply with.
This may seem like a technicality, but it’s a technicality that tyrannies have fallen on.
Every liberal victory is not a triumph. It is another pile of dirt on their own graves. It is another straw on the back of the camel. It is another demonstration that they are corrupt and illegitimate. Their latest victories were gained by abusing the process. They will in the long run lose them just as criminals eventually lose their loot. They have not defeated us. They have corrupted themselves.
4. We’re not done
Every conservative these days seems to have a tipping point for when America will end. None of them are real.
This country was built out of a tiny fraction of the territory and population it holds today. It was built by a handful of people organizing and rousing a movement that spread to a minority of the population at the time.
If the revolution were happening today, it would look a lot like the way it looked then, with major cities in the hands of the establishment and the Loyalists and a handful of farmers that even their formally trained commanders held in contempt fighting against them and the might of an empire.
That’s not coincidence. It’s the whole of human history.
During the Revolutionary War, the entire rebel population of America would be outnumbered by the residents of Manhattan today.
Demographically outnumbered? They had it worse.
Economic collapse? They had it worse.
America isn’t over until it’s over. It will take a long time to happen. At some point the country will be completely unrecognizable, but that’s relative. Would Washington have recognized America in 1952? Or even 1882? America has always been changing. We can’t change it back, but we can change it to.
That’s the real battle.
Contrary to what some conservatives like to believe, the left did not suddenly show up here in 1963 or 1905 and disrupt a formerly peaceful country. The left has always been here. It’s a part of us.
No people and no country are untouched by evil. It’s only a matter of what form it takes. But in any form, we know it by its destructive instincts, its facade of righteousness that poorly conceals a lust for power. Americans have fought it before. Americans have won.
It’s big now, but it’s not nearly as big as we think.
5. A little rhyme and reason
I’ll close with a few selected lines from a children’s nursery rhyme from the days of the big bad USSR that once threatened the world, before folding under the pressure of its people who found the courage to stand up to it.
It’s written for children… but like much that was written in the USSR, it had a message for adults.
The Monster Cockroach
To the picnic they all come,
Munching candy and cake,
In a very merry mood,
For a day at the lake.
Then suddenly they grow numb and still!
Who’s that coming down the hill?!
A fierce and dreadful Roach!
A mean cock-cock-Cockroach!
“Don’t you dare to approach!”
He roars, he rages:
“I’ll lock you in cages!
And swallow you ALL
“Or with a twitch of my mustache,
I’ll turn you all to succotash!”
Alas! Not one dares to fight,
Every bird and beast take flight!
Now the Lion climbs a hill;
From there he speaks his royal will:
“We must regain our happy land!
Against the brute we’ll take a stand!”
“And to the warrior who fears not this foe,
Who this monster will overthrow,
To him I’ll give a juicy bone
And the finest pine cone!”
The creatures in one eager crowd,
Surge forth and cry out loud:
“We do not fear this nasty foe,
With tooth and claw
We’ll lay him low!”
And they all rush to do battle-
Birds, fish, fowl, and cattle.
But the Roach moves his mustache
And bellows: “SUCCOTASH!”
One and all they beat a retreat.
The enemy they don’t defeat!
Into the fields and woods they dash-
Terrorized by the Roach’s mustache!
The Lion shouts: “What a disgrace!
Come back! Come out and show your face!
Pin the enemy with your horns-
Bulls, rhinoceros, unicorns!”
But each in his hiding place stays,
And wails: “Horns aren’t cheap these days…”
And our skin is precious too-
What you ask we cannot do!”
Caught in nettles the crocodiles twitch,
And the elephants get caught in a ditch.
Lo! All that’s heard now
Is the flow of tears;
All that’s seen now
Is the trembling of their ears!
To the Cockroach they all yield-
He’s now lord o’er wood and field.
He struts about among them,
Rubbing his tummy,
Looks at their young ones
And says: “How very yummy!”
The poor, poor parents
Are in distress.
Their dear babes
They hug and caress:
For what mother could give up her child,
Her baby tame or her baby wild?!
So that the monster could devour
Her precious crumb, her little flower!
So mommies and daddies moan and cry
As they bid their infants good-bye!
But now we see another picture:
a flighty flying nimble creature-
A carefree Sparrow lands with a trill
right there on the Roach’s hill,
And for a moment all are mute
Fearing the mustachioed brute:
“A monster?! Where?!
“It’s a roach, a roach, a wee-bit roach,
A little beetle you fear to approach.
Look! It’s a midge a mite,
A bug that can’t even bite!
For our trouble we’re to blame!
What a shame!
What a shame!”
The Hippo then comes forth
With slow pace and a worried face,
Muttering in an anxious way:
“Please go away, go away!
Your words will make him very mad,
He may think of something very bad!
Then the Hippo falls still,
Surprised by a sudden trill…
The sparrow bends her dainty neck
Peck, peck, peck-
Not a smidgen, not a speck!
The roach is swallowed in a flash,
All of him and his mustache!
By: Renee Nal
“The KGB boss described the Muslim world as a waiting petri dish, in which we could nurture a strain of hate-America.” – Lt. Gen. Ion Pacepa
The Cold War’s “most important defector,” Ion Mihai Pacepa, recently revealed that Liberation Theology “was the creation of the KGB, who exported it to Latin America as a way of introducing Marxism into the continent” and is traced to the 1968 “Conference of Latin American Bishops” as reported in a must-read article posted at Breitbart.
But Liberation Theology is only one of the many subversive creations of the KGB, who also fosters and promotes radical Islam as a “weapon against the West,” according to political commentator and New Zealand native Trevor Loudon, who is not at all surprised at the recent revelation that Liberation Theology was an invention of the KGB.
Loudon, whose book The Enemies Within: Communists, Socialists and Progressives in the US Congress is currently being made into a feature documentary, has been sounding the alarm about activities by communists in America for years. In fact, it was Loudon who first made the connection between President Barack Obama and his communist mentor Frank Marshall Davis.
Consider the following by Daniel Greenfield:
Former KGB General Oleg Kalugin had said that many Al Queda terrorists were actually trained by the KGB. A sizable number of the Taliban’s top military people had Russian training as well.
Additionally, former KGB officer Alexander Litvinenko “alleged that al-Qaeda number two Ayman al-Zawahiri was trained by the FSB [formerly KGB] in Dagestan in the years before the 9/11 attacks,” as reported in his obituary at the BBC. As noted at the New American back in 2005, “al-Zawahiri had been very active as the purported top leader of Islamist terrorist operations in Bosnia-Herzegovina during Yugoslavia’s civil war.” As an aside, one of Litvinenko’s accused assassins opined that the whistle-blower accidentally poisoned himself last month.
Former KGB lieutenant colonel Konstantin Georgiyevich Preobrazhenskiy was granted asylum in the United States in 2006. According to Preobrazhenskiy, communists long considered Muslims as the “human resource” for the world revolution.
Watch a discussion here:
This article has been cross-posted at Broadside News.