Can we stop this deadly Iran deal?
Perhaps. (Partially.)
Should we try?
Yes. With every fiber of our being.
To the first point, there are two major hurdles that make stopping this deal nearly impossible.
First, there are the numbers needed in Congress to override Obama’s veto. At this time, the numbers aren’t there. But perhaps we can change that.
Second, even if Congress is able to override Obama’s veto, we cannot stop the full scope of the deal from going into effect. As John Bolton explained during an interview on Fox News, because Obama partnered with European nations, they will still honor the deal irrespective of our actions.
Obama intentionally surrendered our sovereignty to Europe.
And that doesn’t even take into account Russia or China.
According to Bolton, all Congress can do is stop Obama from lifting sanctions. And if that happens, it triggers a clause in the deal that releases Iran from its responsibilities with respect to nuclear agreements.
To the latter point, I’m not convinced it means much. There’s no reason to think Iran would uphold its end of the bargain no matter what the circumstance. Nor am I convinced the deal allows the West any meaningful ability to monitor Iran’s behavior. More importantly, I have no confidence the West would take action against Iran even if they did catch Iran breaking its end of the bargain. Quite the opposite.
But back to the sanctions for a moment. American sanctions have the strongest economic impact on Iran compared to sanctions from other countries. Sanctions relief will also increase the chances that Iran would have enough money to buy a nuclear weapon from another country, such as North Korea. Given the choice between the United States keeping sanctions in place, or not, it’s a no brainer to keep them in place. So while this would not “kill the deal,” as they say, it’s still meaningful.
In addition, a Congressional vote against the deal -- one large enough to override Obama’s veto -- would send a message to the rest of the world that America does not stand with a nuclear Iran. And we certainly don’t fund it to the tune of 150 billion dollars.
How surreal it is to type these words. We are writing, reading, talking, screaming, raging, witnessing, and fearing our country becoming an enabler of the largest state sponsor of terror in the world. That we are on the verge of helping a nation that wants to destroy us, acquire the weapons to do so. That we are aligning ourselves with the 21st century Hitler. And that we must take action -- no less fight a nearly impossible fight -- to curb this descent into evil, madness, and hell.
As John Podhoretz wrote in Commentary Magazine:
The United States and its allies have struck a deal with Iran that effectively ensures that it will be a nuclear state with ballistic missiles in 10 years, assuming Iran adheres to the deal’s terms, which is a very large assumption…The president and the secretary of state are making large claims for the deal that are not true; the same will be true of all of its signatories, who are seeing Nobel stars in their eyes…and while those of us who see Iran’s nuclearization as the threshold threat for the rest of the 21st century will not be silent and will not give up the fight against it, it is appropriate to take a moment to despair that we — the United States and the West — have come to this.
Yes. Despair. That it has come to this.
And, yes. Not giving up the fight.
Each of us must do everything in our power to create a small miracle -- to maximize the chance that Congress can override the veto of the evil enabler of terror who sits in the oval office.
Will our actions matter? I don’t know. Like many readers, I have become cynical and increasingly hopeless. I have lost confidence that my voice counts for anything.
And yet.
How can any of us live with ourselves if we didn’t do everything possible to ensure a future for ourselves and our children? To live.
You don’t have to be optimistic when taking political action. People can have serious doubts about the outcome of their efforts and still put forth the effort.
And mind you, the effort is nothing monumental. It doesn’t take an enormous amount of time or energy (not that that’s the point). It doesn’t require that we put our life in harm’s way or take a huge risk we are unwilling to take. (Obama is doing that for us.) All we need to do is contact our elected officials to say we are against the Iran deal.
Will they listen? I don’t know. Will they care? I don’t know. The cynic in me believes most are dug in and know how they will vote irrespective of how many call to voice their opposition.
And yet.
Imagine your child or grandchild living in a world with a nuclear Iran. Imagine your child or grandchild asking what you did to try to stop it. And imagine you saying you couldn’t be bothered to take a couple of minutes out of every day for a few weeks to make a few phone calls.
Imagine your child or grandchild asking you why you didn’t do it. And imagine telling them you couldn’t be bothered because it wouldn’t matter. And when they ask you how you knew it wouldn’t matter, you tell them it hadn’t seemed to matter in the past so you assumed it wouldn’t matter now.
And they say: But still. Why didn’t you try?
And you have to look them in the eye and defend your cynicism and hopelessness, while all-the-while you want them to be fighters.
How can anyone be so cynical, so hopeless, or so apathetic to be unwilling to expend even an ounce of energy to press for votes against this deal?
Because unlike any other dangerous move Obama has made against America, this time the stakes are as high as they get. Obama has shoved the United States (and Israel) in front of a speeding train with barely room to maneuver to free ourselves.
Perhaps this precipice that Obama has brought us to is so unthinkable, so surreal, and so terrifying that it tests the limits of our ability to truly grasp what it means. Perhaps we retreat into denial. Or perhaps the prospect of a nuclear Iran is somewhat abstract. It’s a country far away from us. And maybe we somewhat simplistically think Israel will take care of Iran.
Whatever the case, we cannot allow ourselves to remain passive.
Taking action doesn’t require us to fit into a box or don a label, be it “conservative,” “grass roots,” “activist,” “patriot,” and so on. It’s enough that we’re American. And for that reason, we never give up.
Here is some information for those who will not give up, despite apathy, discouragement, disillusionment, hopelessness, frustration, as well as a hefty dose of rage. Time is of the essence. The vote is days away.
The United States is not a constitutional republic. It is an oligarchy controlled by wealthy financiers who hire politicians to pass legislation beneficial to them and employ journalists to keep the citizens ignorant and compliant.
Neither the Democrats nor the Republicans believe in democracy. It is simply an ideological contest between two different forms of totalitarianism based on big government, where they represent only themselves in their pursuit of personal power and profit.
The following article is written by Lawrence Sellin who writes for WesternJournalism.com.
Over the last hundred years, the Democrat Party has moved farther and farther to the left, evolving from populism to Marxism and developing an operational model resembling that of the mafia. Its leaders are a gaggle of coffeehouse communists and unindicted felons, who seek the lifestyles of the rich and famous while practicing the politics of Joseph Stalin.
The Republicans are democratic only in the sense that they are willing to sell their votes to the highest bidder, where their political power and, ultimately, compensation from their rich donors increase proportionally with the expansion of government.
The federal government is now an industry competing with the private sector for revenues and resources; but, unlike the private sector, government is unconstrained by regulation and the rule of law.
The cost of public-sector pay and benefits, for example, which in many cases far exceed what comparable workers earn in the private sector, combined with hundreds of billions of dollars in unfunded pension liabilities for retired government workers, are weighing down the economy.
The fundamental problem is public-sector collective bargaining. It is appropriate in the private sector, where workers bargain with private, profit-making corporations and where market forces provide an independent check on both sides’ demands.
Yet there is an unholy alliance and a mutually beneficial relationship for money and votes between Democrats and public sector unions, which, in terms of government services, translate into higher costs, lower efficiency, and, worst of all, less democracy.
Why are such illogical and dishonest policies allowed to continue? Because it is profitable.
To foster big government from which they personally benefit, the Democrats nurture a Marxist-type victim class, while the Republicans serve the affluent–both at the expense of the Middle Class, whose propensities toward liberty and accountability represent a threat to the hopelessly corrupt status quo that the two major parties and the media endeavor so vigorously to protect.
Ergo, the War on the Middle Class, now pursued by both Democrats and Republicans, albeit for different reasons.
As a consequence and, not surprisingly, today, the main activity of the federal government is lying. Barack Obama lied to get elected, lied to enact his policies, and lied when those policies failed. In response, the Republicans added cowardice to their own set of lies.
As George Orwell noted: “In a time of universal deceit – telling the truth is a revolutionary act.”
That is why the political establishment and the media find Donald Trump so frightening: the danger that the truth might be spoken.
There is, however, a greater peril – when blatant and outrageous lies are no longer sufficient to soothe the electorate into complacency, such a government must begin to curtail liberty and oppress the people in order to sustain itself, an approach with which both Democrats and Republicans find agreement.
The United States is on the cusp of a second civil war, one to determine who should control the federal government. It is not a contest between the Democrats and Republicans or liberals and conservatives, but a battle between the entrenched power and tyranny of the bipartisan political-media establishment versus the rights and liberties of the American people.
Only the truth will set us free.
As many readers know, a temporary restraining order was issued that prohibits The Center for Medical Progress from releasing undercover videos that have investigative footage of Stem Express.
Stem Express is a biotech company that does stem cell research using, among other things, organs and body parts of aborted babies, which they, and those in the abortion industry, refer to as “fetal tissue.” The “tissue” from many of these babies is supplied through Planned Parenthood.
One could only wonder what kind of incriminating evidence is on the videotapes that would prompt Stem Express to seek such an injunction against The Center for Medical Progress.
But now, perhaps, it is less of a mystery.
In a CNN interview on Friday, David Daleiden, of The Center for Medical Progress, stated:
In a meeting with their top leadership, they admitted that they sometimes get fully intact fetuses shipped to their laboratory from the abortion clinics they work with, and that could be prima facie evidence of born alive infants. And so that’s why they’re trying to suppress that videotape and they’re very scared of it.
The possibility that babies born alive during “botched abortions” have been used to harvest organs was also raised during an exchange in the fourth undercover video. At one point when discussing the best way to harvest intact organs and body parts, the abortionist said:
Sometimes, you know, if we get, if someone delivers before we are able to see them for a procedure, then we are intact.
To what was she referring? I can only assume a late-term or “partial birth” abortion, which is a process that takes several days, during which time the baby is killed inside the womb and delivered still born. But as has been well documented, there are situations when the baby is born alive. (See here, here, here, and here among numerous examples.)
And so, one must ask: was the abortionist talking about infanticide? And has Stem Express received dead babies who were born alive who were murdered or left to die after they were born?
Back in 1998, Senator Joe Lieberman spoke in the US Senate and called out President Clinton's behavior. He did not vote to convict President Clinton a few months later, but expressed his concerns with Oval Office behavior.
Will some Democrat do the same today? Or is the party in the tank for Planned Parenthood?
Where is President Obama or Secretary Clinton?
According to news reports, the Obama White House is attacking the people who made the videos:
The White House called a string of videos depicting the process of tissue and organ harvesting from aborted fetuses the work of 'extremists' today and charged that there's no evidence that Planned Parenthood has broken any laws.
President Barack Obama's spokesman, Josh Earnest, told Daily Mail Online he did not know whether the president had seen any of the controversial videos, including a new one, released online this morning, but the president is aware of them and still believes the group is worthy of federal funding.
Earnest accused the group's critics of attempting to play politics 'with some selectively edited videos' and gave and reiterated the White House's opinion that the videos, produced by a pro-life group going by the name Center for Medical Progress, are not accurate representations of the conversations that took place.
Sorry but this is sad, really sad.
First, the videos were for edited for TV but a full version is available in the website.
Second, are Democrats comfortable with what they saw? Talking about baby parts over salad and wine?
The Democrats need to be very careful because the abortion issue is a problem with Hispanics, according to a new poll:
A survey by Public Religion Research Institute was released last Friday that shows how Hispanic millennials are far more pro-life than their white counterparts. “How Race and Religion Shape Millennial Attitudes on Sexuality and Reproductive Health” reported that 54% of Hispanic millennials responded that they believed abortion should be illegal in most or all cases, compared to 45% who believe it should be legal.
That poll was taken before these videos were released.
It would be wise for a Democrat to call out Planned Parenthood. Say that such activities are perhaps illegal. Maybe even call it barbaric!
It is sad if we've reached the point where the Democrats are the party of abortion, including baby parts after 12 weeks!
No comments:
Post a Comment