Let’s Unmake a Deal!

It’s official. President Donald Trump announced we will be pulling out of the Iran Deal brokered by former President Barack Obama. And if your dogs heard a high pitched shriek, that was from Leftists losing their shit over it.

Let me make one thing crystal clear. I am not a fan of the Iran Deal, nor have I ever been. Although the Left says now it’s because I’m racist and want to erase a major accomplishment of the Obama Administration because Obama is black, nothing could be further from the truth. A bad deal is a bad deal, no matter who makes it.

And the Iran Deal is the Academy Award of bad ideas.

First off, it’s an agreement where the other party got the store without much effort on their part. The original terms of the Iran Deal included a provision where Iran agreed not to develop nuclear weapons while promising to allow inspections of their nuclear facilities. Sounds good, right? Wellllll…there’s part of the issue. In order for those inspections to occur, Iran would have to agree to let them happen and were given 24 days to comply with a request to inspect their nuclear sites. And if they refused or didn’t respond, there would be another vote by a Joint Commission…in which Iran would be allowed a vote.

In other words, if Iran got a request to inspect their nuclear facilities, they would have nearly a month to respond. Now, what could happen in that time frame? Maybe…oh, I don’t know…make it look like they were complying with the terms of the Iran Deal while not actually complying?

In addition to that, there isn’t much of an incentive to comply. If Iran failed, the sanctions they had before the Iran Deal could be put back in place, which is basically the equivalent of a sternly worded memo. You know, like the UN likes to send when a member country does something bad. And with those sanctions back in place, Iran could go back to doing everything it was doing to develop nuclear weapons prior to the Iran Deal.

Then, there’s the bribe…I mean payment we gave them. First, we gave them $400 million for an undelivered weapons shipment from the US to Iran during the reign of the Shah of Iran. After he was toppled by Islamic extremists, that money was frozen. Enter Barack Obama, who not only gave them the $400 million to settle that tab, but also gave them an additional $1.3 billion in interest to boot! That’s like giving a school bully your lunch money for the days he was too sick to bully you as well as your lunch money until you’re, oh, 75.

Good thing Iran has a history of liking us…oh, wait. Remember the aforementioned Shah of Iran? Well, his successors love to chant “Death to America” and want us wiped off the face of the planet. And no number of concerts with James Taylor sponsored by then-Secretary of State John “Robert Mueller’s Stunt Double” Kerry will change that. If anything, it might make Iran more driven to build nukes. Talk about seeing fire and rain, kids!

The kicker for me is the fact the Iran Deal wouldn’t move the needle on preventing them from building nuclear weapons. Under the terms of the deal, Iran would still be allowed to develop nuclear energy, just not nuclear weapons. But why would Iran need nuclear energy in the first place? They are sitting on one of the richest oil reserves in the world, and let’s just say Iran hasn’t been joining in the Earth Day celebrations since…ever. And considering the environmentalists don’t exactly like nuclear energy, it’s hard for me to believe they would be willing to roll over for this.

But let’s go back to the oil reserves for a moment. The bulk of the world still needs oil, which means Iran has a vested interest in continuing to drill for it. What would be their incentive to switch to nuclear power? Frankly, there isn’t one. Even if they found out their oil reserves were dryer than an Al Gore poetry slam, there is no upside to them going nuclear.

And that’s the point the Left completely misses when defending the Iran Deal. No matter what the terms of the agreement were, it wouldn’t stop (or even hinder) Iran from getting nuclear weapons due to the Mack truck sized holes in the deal. It would, however, give them plenty of incentive to play the same games Saddam Hussein did with his chemical and biological weapons while making the world community look like buffoons in the process. Brilliant diplomacy, Barack and John.

No matter what the world leaders say, the Iran Deal was a dog turd on top of a cold vomit sundae that we would have to eat while Iran got all you can eat ice cream. President Trump was absolutely right to get us out of the Iran Deal.

Of course, the Left will tell us such a move puts us all in more danger than if we had stuck with the Iran Deal or negotiated for a better plan. Here’s the thing, kids: Iran wasn’t going to comply because they are intent on getting nuclear weapons. They were stringing us along from the word go, and the Obama Administration were willing to hold the string. And, no, the Iran Deal wasn’t better than nothing, as nothing wouldn’t have given Iran an influx of cash they could divert to making or buying nuclear weapons, thus ensuring they would be a nuclear power either way.

Leftists also say pulling out of the Iran Deal is proof Trump, and by extension Israel, wants war. I beg to differ. Few people in this world want war, but blowing shit up tends to make it harder for our enemies to strike back or use their nuclear arsenals against us. If it’s war that will accomplish a non-nuclear Iran, then it will be a good sight better than the Iran Deal. It’s not the endgame I favor, but it’s the endgame we may be facing, and it was caused by an inept President and his inept State Department trying to get anything they could just to look like they did something.

In other words, they wanted a participation trophy for diplomacy. And we know how those tend to work.

 

It’s Not a Muslim Ban

President Trump’s Executive Order banning travel from foreign nationals from 7 of the world’s largest hotbed of terrorists is not a ban on Muslims or an attack on Islam. Despite the cry’s of the Liberals here and abroad.

The 7 nations impacted by the travel ban or Syria, Iran, Iraq, Yemen, Sudan, Somalia, and Libya. All of them have very high numbers of terrorists acting freely within their borders and abroad.

If this was a ban on Muslims then the following countries would also be banned: Saudi Arabia, United Arab Emirates, Indonesia, Pakistan, Afghanistan, India, Bangladesh, Nigeria, Turkey, Egypt, Algeria, Morocco, Uzbekistan, Ethiopia, China, Niger, Tanzania, Malaysia, Mali, Senegal, Burkina Faso, Tunisia, Russia, Kazakhstan, Azerbaijan, Guinea, Ivory Coast, Chad, Tajikistan, Jordan, Palestinian Territories, and Israel.

All of the nations listed above are NOT banned, but all have equally high or higher Muslim populations than the 7 countries that are banned and/or are located in the Middle East where Islam originated.

So how is this a Muslim ban again? Seriously I want a dialog here from someone to explain how implementing a travel ban from 7 countries is a ban against all Muslims.

Mathematically it also shows that this is not a ban on Muslims. In the 7 banned nations there are 205,428,950 Muslims. While within the remaining unbanned nations that I listed there are 1,326,550,062 Muslims. For those that are mathematically challenged that’s about 640% more Muslims of the world that are not travel banned which covers the majority of the Muslim population of 1,703,146,000 world wide.

Now I will state that the ban was a bit too restrictive as it did unfortunately catch some legitimate travellers in its broad net. And that can be fixed without going crazy with false accusations and stupidity by the Left who are still upset that they lost the election.

 

More dead in Ohio

There has been a mass killing on a US University campus. Yet there are strangely no calls for banning the weapons used in the horrific attack. No calls to make it more difficult to own or obtain the weapons used. There are no calls to hold the manufactures accountable to the crimes committed with their inventions. Why is there no outage from the Liberal side of the political spectrum to this tragedy?

First of all, because they are still in shock over the 2016 elections. They have been voted out of office in nearly every election outside of their strongholds. Local, State and Nation elections went to Conservatives and the Republican Party. The Liberals are at a loss for how this happened.

Second. The alleged perpetrator of these heinous crimes was a radicalized Islamic terrorist. With ISIS claiming responsibility for the crimes. This goes against the notion that Islam is a religion of peace and we should be in negotiations with terrorists. Something the Liberal left has as part of it’s pipe dream.

And lastly. The weapons used in this attack were a vehicle and a knife. So if the Liberal left decides to say something about the attack at all. It will be to blame the attacker himself. The weapons will never be mentioned since the Left is only out to destroy the 2nd Amendment. Since firearms weren’t used in the attack, there is no need to say anything at all.

 

Good Idea or Bad Idea?

In the wake of the Orlando shooting, Democrats decided to recycle an idea they introduced last year: banning people on the FBI’s terrorist watch list from getting guns. (At least they believe in recycling something!) On the surface, it makes sense. We don’t want terrorists getting guns, right? Absolutely.

So, why aren’t more people on the Right on board with this idea? A little thing the kids like to call “due process.” It might be just a fad, though, if some people get their way.

Put simply (so Leftists can understand it), due process requires people not be denied their fundamental rights without there being some sort of legal action. Although the FBI is an arm of law enforcement, it is not equal to a trial where little things like evidence and sworn testimony can be used to determine guilt.

Still unclear about this concept, Leftists? Let’s try something closer to your political hearts. Due process prevents cops from throwing members of Black Lives Matter into solitary confinement before the BLM clowns get their case heard in court. After they’re found guilty, then the BLM clowns get thrown into solitary. There are no short-cuts in the process, kids.

Even if you’re not down with due process, there’s another huge (or YUGE if you’re a Trump supporter) problem with the FBI’s watch list. The way you get on the list in the first place is completely arbitrary. You don’t even need to be an actual terrorist to land on it! In fact, you could be an actual terrorist and not land on it. (See the Boston Marathon bombers for a prime example.) And if you’re a mother of three from Minneapolis with the oh-so-Muslim-sounding name of Lena Olson, you could wind up on it by mistake.

Yeah, that’s not exactly a “whoops.”

And it’s not exactly something we can gloss over, either. Since 9/11, we as a society have been willing on some level to let some rights go by the wayside. Democrats and Republicans alike have used the fear of terrorism, both foreign and domestic, to weaken the concept of due process for their own political ends. This continues today, as does the inefficiency and ineptitude of those who keep and maintain the watch list.

That, in and of itself, is not a valid enough reason to apply the watch list to whether someone should be allowed to get a gun. But I do have an idea, and I’m hoping the Left (and some people on the Right) have the intellectual courage to act on it.

If you support the Democrats’ proposal, volunteer to go on the watch list. Even if your name is Lena Olson. Report yourself to the FBI as a suspected terrorist, just to be on the safe side. If it saves just one life…

 

Nightclub Terror

My thoughts and prayers go out to the victims, survivors, families, and the community of Orlando in the wake of the terrorist attack on Sunday.

We must keep this in focus. This was a terrorist attack by a pro-ISIS supporting Muslim. And that the Quran’s statements against homosexuality are very well documented and confirmed. This was a crime motivated by pure hatred.

The Left always ignores all other factors and starts pointing the fingers at the gun used. And starts calling for a ban on “assault weapons”.

An “assault weapon” is a misnomer. An assault is a verb, it’s an action that a person does. It is also a crime. While a weapon is any tool used to make any violent action easier. And a weapon can be anything. A gun, a knife, a rock, a screwdriver, and even a spork. So an “assault weapon” is any weapon used in an assault. It is NOT a class or type of firearm.

The 2nd Amendment to the US Constitution is quite clear. The right to keep and bear arms shall not be infringed. The gun, be it a pistol or a semi-automatic rifle is not the problem.

The problem is Muslim terrorists, home-grown or otherwise. The problem is the person pulling the trigger. Omar Mateen in this case. And since he is also among the dead we may never know all of the details in this case.

From the news articles coming out it is speculated that he was bipolar, but not diagnosed. And he was known to the FBI but not deemed a threat or under investigation, or prohibited from acquiring arms at the time of this crime.

These point to problems with our mental health system and with our vetting of potential home-grown terrorist threats. Not a problem with guns.

In fact, by state law, the nightclub was a gun-free zone. Like places of most mass shootings where law abiding citizens will be unarmed. So adding more anti-gun (gun control) laws isn’t going to help. Terrorists and criminals do not follow the law anyway. One more isn’t going to change that.

If the nightclub wasn’t part of a gun-free zone, there could have been a chance that a patron was armed. And that armed patron could have prevented this crime from from reaching the level it did.

This attack touches me deeply on several levels. For those that aren’t aware, this last weekend was a “gay pride” weekend across the country. And the Orlando nightclub was Orlando’s best gay bar.

I am a strong advocate for the 2nd Amendment. So when it is unjustly attacked I do stand to defend it.

We need to see and acknowledge the dangers that Islam presents to humanity and freedom. It is not a religion like all the others, it is not a religion of peace or love. But not all Muslims practice all of its tenets.

And most importantly there are two people that I care about that could have been among the victims at the nightclub. My transgender child Jen who lives in Florida and is a strong advocate for LGBTQ rights. And my gay cousin Todd who visits Florida frequently. They are the two most important reasons this cowardly attack affects me on a personal level.

 

The War on Terror

We are fighting the war on terror in the wrong way. Ever since we started the war after the events of 9/11, we have been engaged in nation building and spreading democracy.

In Iraq, we toppled Saddam Hussein, and now Iraq is in a bitter civil war were the Islamic State Caliphate is gaining ground. In Egypt, we toppled Mubarak, during the so-called Arab Spring. Only to have him replaced by the Muslim Brotherhood, a known terrorist organization. Fortunately the Egyptian military removed the Brotherhood from power, but the area is far from stable. In Libya, we saw to the removal of Colonel Qaddafi. Only to have him replaced by Islamic terrorist hardliners that lead to the death of 4 Americans at the US Embassy.

Now we have Syria. Bashar al-Assad, like the other leaders of Islamic terrorist nations is a bad person. His civil rights record is abysmal and he certainly is not a friend. But we should support his government in the civil war that rages in Syria at this time.

Why? Because he is fighting against the Islamic State Caliphate and other hardline Islamic terrorist groups. And without Bashar, the power vacuum will be filled by an unknown person or group. Bashar is just the lesser of evils and he is the devil we known. Keeping him in power will help to stabilize Syria and the rest of the Middle East.

We must engage the most dangerous enemy and threat to our national security and the security of the entire world instead of going about the nation building business. And that enemy is the Islamic State (ISIS) Caliphate.

We need a ground, air, and sea plan of assault. The Caliphate must be deprived of it’s land first and foremost. This gives the Caliphate legitimacy in the eyes of Muslims. Additionally we must stop the flow of money, goods, man power, and their ability to use the internet.

I am not a tactician. I can not say HOW this all should be done. But it does need to be done or the Islamic State will continue to gain ground, funds, recruits, and power. And then it will be even harder to stop if not impossible to stop. Better learn Arabic if that happens.

 

On the cover of the Rollin’ Stone

The August 1st issue of the Rolling Stone shows a very good picture, perhaps a college photo, of the younger Boston Marathon bomber terrorist Dzhokhar Tsarnaev. This image is generating a lot of flak in the media and social networks across the US and around the world.

In many places, the magazine is being pulled from shelves and not sold by entire chains. Other groups are urging readers of the Rolling Stone to contact all of the advertisers to express their out rage at the choice of covers by the magazine. Some even call for boycotting the advertisers as well as magazine. I’m sure that the Rolling Stone will loose a number of subscribers as well. And some magazine copies may end up getting “lost in the mail.”

The article is available online and free to read by anyone who wishes to do so at this time. The article is located here: http://www.rollingstone.com/culture/news/jahars-world-20130717

The article covers a number of sources, including exclusive interviews by the Rolling Stone of some of Mr Tsarnaev’s friends from his neighborhood, his high school and college days. It’s not the point of the article to make Mr. Tsarnaev or his brother into a hero or a rock star. No, the article attempts to uncover how a young man who seemed to have a bright future and had the chance at the American Dream can fall so far so quickly.

It is worth the read. And there are several factors that did lead to the brothers becoming terrorists. The city they lived in is very liberal, “progressive” as it is called in the article. Their Islamic heritage. And being abandoned by their parents return to Russia. Those would be the top 3 factors that pushed them to becoming terrorists.

Although these and other environmental factors did play a role in the events that unfolded. It does not change the fact that they are ultimately responsible for their actions. The older brother has paid for it with his life already. The fate of the younger brother is yet to be determined. If Dzhokhar Tsarnaev looses his life at his trial. It would be a just punishment for his actions.

As for the Rolling Stone. It would have been better to post an alternate picture on the cover of the August 1st issue. Even if it was another picture of Mr Tsarnaev. Something a little less glamorous. Perhaps a photo of him in a prison jump suit.