Baltimore: Progressive Lynch Mobs, Again

While our Progressive Emperor fiddles in DC with his Court Jesters, aka the National Media and Hollywood Celebrities, we find that just up the road a bit, the once great city of Baltimore burns. Not in a fire, mind you, started by a distressed cow, living in a non-PETA approved barn, nor as the result of "global warming," nor of an off-shore drilling accident, nor of a deranged Tea Party arsonist, and not even as a "logical" consequence of the evils of fracking.

Nope. Not at all.

Democrat-ruled Baltimore burns at the hands of gangs of feral youth, products of the greatest Progressive achievement of all time, the destruction of the family, in particular, of the black family. Children without fathers, "raised by the village" of foster homes, social workers, community organizers, single moms, ignorant and overpaid teachers, welfare bureaucrats, race hucksters, and, ultimately, for those who survive, police, prosecutors, judges, and wardens.

What neither Democratic Party endorsed and promoted slavery nor Democratic Party endorsed and promoted Jim Crow could do, modern Democratic Party policies have done.

The kids are not all right.

Corrupt Democratic Party urban political machines; years of Democratic Party preaching of race hatred and victimization; Democrat policies that created broken homes and broken schools; all combined with generations of Democrat voters and wards getting "free" stuff thanks to the Democrat-created welfare state have produced what we see on the streets of Edgar Allan Poe's hometown: a horror of wild lynch mobs beyond anything from the great Poe's imagination.

In the old days, Democrat-led lynch mobs terrorized the rural South; today, Democrat-led lynch mobs terrorize all of urban America.

Thanks, Democrats! You certainly are consistent!

Listening to the Tick Tock of the Hillary Crook Clock

Sorry for the long gap in posting.

I have been busy with family visiting, selling a house in Virginia, going to dog obedience classes (I now obey my dogs), and just suffering from a general tiredness when I look at the domestic and global scene.

What more can one say about events? I am not Nostradamus, but I must say that going back over my work of posts, I think this little blog has called developments pretty accurately. Of course, I admit, it wasn't too hard. The Obama disaster at home and abroad was foreseeable from Day One of The One.

Now we see a new disaster befalling our beloved but increasingly ragged Republic. The Hillary candidacy. You don't need me to summarize or link to the growing pile of stories about the corruptness and general sleaziness of the Ex-FLOTUS and her charming rogue of a crooked husband. Long time readers will recall that over the years I have stated on many occasions that (example here) when it comes to the defenders of Clinton they

accepted what I call the "Whitewater Defense." This tactic was perfected by the Clintons as they weaseled their way out of a major corruption scandal in Arkansas. That scandal was actually a simple one of real estate developers bribing Governor Bill Clinton with Hillary Clinton serving as the cut-out. The Clintons, however, got their friends in the media to accept, in essence, that Whitewater was just too complicated, boring, technical, and convoluted to explain.

Whitewater, after all, was very simple. The First Lady of Arkansas used her position at the Rose Law Firm to launder bribes to the Governor, her husband. That husband returned the favor while his wife was a Senator and, most notably, during her time as SecState. The so-called Clinton Foundation was and is a massive scam with one purpose: putting money into the pockets of the Clintons. They have gotten away with this tactic for years. Let us not forget that when she announced her run for President, she declared as a goal getting "unaccountable money out our political system." What the media didn't say was that she wants to get it out of the political system and into her coffers, but, hey, that's just me saying . . .

I must admit, however, that I am a bit surprised that EVEN the old-time Democrat legacy mainstream media have found it impossible to ignore the evidence of Clinton Corruption. That's positive, although I am sure they will forget all about it if Hillary becomes the Democrat nominee against just about any Republican. Then it will be time to close ranks.

It's getting interesting and boring at the same time.

And They're Off! The 2016 Campaign is Underway . . .

I apologize to foreign readers. Our political system gets a little crazier every election cycle. It is hard to believe but the campaigns for the November 2016 elections are already underway, and, in fact, have been for some time. We have had four candidates formally announce that they are running--Ted Cruz, Rand Paul, Hillary Clinton, and Marco Rubio--and we will see several more in the near future. I didn't really want to write about this stuff yet, but . . . it's either that or mope around the house because my favorite TV show, "Justified," is coming to an end. Getting forcibly retired is rough . .  .

I have a couple of favorites in the Republican field but will keep quiet for now as to who they are. Let me just say that it is a very interesting field, indeed. There are some very good candidates and potential candidates out there. I can safely say that any one of these already announced or soon-to-announce GOPers stands head-and-shoulders above Hillary Clinton, the presumptive Democrat nominee (we'll get back to that in a moment.) Any one of them has a stronger record of accomplishment, ethical standards, and political smarts, than the rather tired and tiring, and corrupt prevaricator Hillary Clinton.

Let's deal with the kick-off of the Clinton campaign. For me, so far, the operative word is "WEIRD." She seems to hold a bulging campaign war chest--some reports indicate as much $2.5 BILLION--but you couldn't tell from the Ted Mack Amateur Hour roll-out of her latest effort for the top job.  All very weird. Hillary launched with a video announcement that makes her look distant, aloof, arrogant, controlling, and condescending. Note to campaign managers: when you have a candidate that is, in fact, distant, aloof, arrogant, controlling, and condescending, you might not want to emphasize those characteristics.  She made this announcement not to a cheering crowd but to a camera, and then followed that with a bizarre road trip leaving from the Clinton mansion in very upscale Chapaqua, New York to Iowa.

This road trip to meet "people" was proudly announced as undertaken in a "van" named Scooby. Huh? Scooby? What marketing genius came up with that? Is it supposed to appeal to the watchers of Saturday morning cartoon shows of the 1970s, 80s, and 90s? An attempt at evoking down-to-earth hippies doing a Kerouac impression? At conjuring images of a flower-bedecked VW van, belching marijuana smoke from its windows? Nutty. The "van," of course, turned out to be a slick mega-buck Chevy conversion, a rolling living room, a very modern limo, that ripped across the Midwest at high-speed while escorted by the Secret Service. Hillary hardly bothered to stop and talk to anybody, eating at a Chipotle incognito--our only images of her are those provided by grainy security camera footage, conjuring an impression of an armed hold-up by an elderly Patty Hearst in a pant suit.

Why didn't she just fly to Iowa if she wasn't going to talk to anybody? Then today, I see her sitting in what appears to be a car repair shop, with an old alternator and some other assorted car parts scattered around behind her for artistic "blue collar" effect, prattling on about how she wants to be a "champion" for the middle class and fight to get big money out of our political campaigns. Note to campaign managers: when sitting on perhaps $2.5 billion and with a very rich candidate who routinely charges $250,000 to give a vapid speech, you might not want to put the emphasis on money as an evil in campaigns. Just a thought.

My number two son called me just as I was starting to write this. He makes this prediction: Hillary wins neither the White House nor the Dem nomination. I am a bit more cautious, but the kid might have a point. What can Hillary say to overcome her long track record of scandal and nil accomplishment? I don't see an enthusiasm wave for Hillary; the fact that she launched her campaign so early, when there is no obvious Dem opponent on the horizon for the nomination, just might indicate that Hillary's wealthy campaign team worries about Evita's their leader's numbers. Let's face it, any Republican who doesn't pull his punches can eat her alive in debate. "Remember when you proudly told us in 2008 that Obama was not ready for the 2 am phone call but you were? Well, that call came from Benghazi and you were where? Why was the Embassy put on hold?"

On the other hand, I have been impressed by the roll-outs of the Cruz, Paul, and Rubio campaigns. Not even the echo chamber legacy media could hide the genuine enthusiasm these articulate and knowledgable Senators attract.

Anyhow, enough. We will discuss all this to death in the coming months.

Fake Iran Deal, Part III

Just a quick post to note a simple fact. In a prior post on the fake Iran "deal," I noted that, "The fake 'deal' announced by the White House will have very real consequences."

We see in the news today one of the first and very clear examples of those consequences (my added emphasis),

Russia has lifted a ban on supplying Iran with a sophisticated air defence missile system, the Kremlin has said. 

Delivery of the S-300s was cancelled in 2010 after the UN imposed sanctions on Iran over its nuclear programme. 

But the Russian president gave the go-ahead after Tehran struck an interim deal with world powers to curb nuclear activities in exchange for sanctions relief. 

Despite the sanctions, Russia and Iran have remained close allies. 

The contract to deliver the system was heavily criticised by Israel and the US, who feared it could be used to protect Iranian nuclear sites.

As predicted, Obama's fake "deal" has real and dangerous consequences for the world.

This is only the beginning . . .

Hillary's Running! Yawn . . . .

Stop the presses for this one!

Hillary Clinton is running for President!

Exciting, eh?

Totally unexpected! Who would have thunk it?!?

Now it is up to the same progressive media machine that sold us an inept, corrupt, unqualified, no accomplishment, young black man as president, to sell us an inept, corrupt, unqualified, no accomplishment, old white woman as president . . . Can they do it? You know they're going to try! Ain't that a grand prediction?

The Fake Iran Deal, Part II

I am glad to see others have caught on that the so-called "deal" on nukes with Iran is fake. There is a good summary at Legal Insurrection (one of the best blogs around) of the Iranian reaction to the White House's announcement and pronouncements on the "deal." The Iranians say the White House is lying and that the points issued by Obama's team are not as agreed.

Well, my faithful six or seven readers, you all know that you heard it here first on April 3, when this humble blog announced that the deal was a fake, and not even worthy of comparison to the Munich deal,

So comparing the Geneva "deal" with Iran to the Munich Agreement is unfair to the Munich Agreement. Chamberlain wasn't lying when he announced he had a deal; Obama and Kerry are lying when they announce that they have a deal. 

I repeat, there is no deal. 

I have been in lots of negotiations, and can spot fake talking points real fast. The giveaway, of course, is that the detailed "parameters" were announced by the US; where are the signatures on the deal? I want to see where the Iranians signed.

Where do we find the Iranian negotiator's signature, or initials, or even a joint US-EU-Iran declaration with the agreed points? Nowhere, that's where. At most, the negotiators spent over a year and half negotiating an agreement on what to negotiate about the next three months. Now, of course, it turns out that even that is in dispute.

All that was achieved were very significant concessions to the Iranians in exchange for, well, uh, having them talk a few months more. That's it. What are those concessions? To start, of course, the Iranians get away with decades of violating their commitments under the Non-Proliferation Treaty (NPT). They apparently will get to keep their enriched uranium, as well as thousands of centrifuges. That seems non-negotiable now. In addition, the US and the West have more than implicitly acknowledged Iran's "right" to develop nuclear weapons over the next decade. What have the Iranians given up? Well, uh, nothing. They didn't even have to give up support for terrorism or their commitment to the destruction of Israel and America. Neither did they give up their ballistic missile development efforts. Why do you need ballistic missiles with a nuclear weapon capability if you're not going to develop nuclear weapons? Another unanswered question.

The fake "deal" announced by the White House will have very real consequences. It kills forty-plus years of nuclear non-proliferation efforts. The NPT means nothing now. I suspect that the Sunni Arabs, especially the Saudis, are already in touch with Sunni Pakistan on obtaining nuke capabilities. This fake "deal" makes much more likely a very real and major Middle East war that could easily spill out of that region.

That is Obama's legacy: he and his malevolent administration have bequeathed us a weakened America and a much more dangerous world.

The Fake Iran Deal

Well, folks, the White House is out enriching its account of the "historic" deal reached with Iran. The ol' Obama PR machine and its media acolytes are spinning like centrifuges, praising the "deal" to the sky. In all these mushrooming detonations of praise and self-congratulation one simple, little, itsy-bitsy fact has been overlooked. I hate to be the party pooper, but, well, there is no deal.

Nope. No deal. I'll get back to that in a second but first let's look at another "deal" that was supposed to be a historic breakthrough that would assure peace.

Yes, of course, I refer to the September 29, 1938 "Munich Agreement" reached by Germany, Italy, the UK, and France. I have written about this before, so let me be brief. That deal conceded to Hitler's demands for Czechoslovakia's Sudetenland. If you read the text at the link above, you can see that it was a very short, and very much to the point description of what would happen to the Sudetenland and to the Germans living in the rest of Czechoslovakia.

You will see that nowhere does the Agreement contain the famous words, "Peace in our time," and nowhere does it state explicitly that Germany would give up further territorial claims in Europe. That stuff was spin by Chamberlain to sell the deal in the UK, silence the increasingly vocal Winston Churchill, and soothe the highly uneasy French leader Daladier. The Munich deal was so successful that less than a year later--voila!--the Second World War was underway as Germany invaded Poland, ignoring Anglo-French guarantees to that nation as just so much fake "red line" drawing.

So comparing the Geneva "deal" with Iran to the Munich Agreement is unfair to the Munich Agreement. Chamberlain wasn't lying when he announced he had a deal; Obama and Kerry are lying when they announce that they have a deal.

I repeat, there is no deal.

I have been in lots of negotiations, and can spot fake talking points real fast. The giveaway, of course, is that the detailed "parameters"  were announced by the US; where are the signatures on the deal? I want to see where the Iranians signed.

The Iranian take on the "parameters" is quite different from the line peddled by Obama and Kerry. While Obama seeks to give the impression that these "parameters" have been agreed, the Iranian position is that, basically, these "parameters" establish the topics that will be discussed over the following weeks and months, except, of course, for one. The Iranians claim that sanctions must be lifted immediately or there is no further "progress." In addition, of course, the Iranians get to keep their nuclear program. A minor detail.

This is as fake as fake can be. Worse. It is a massive capitulation by the West, the US most notably, and a tremendous boost to the madmen in Tehran. Does anybody believe that were the Iranians to "cheat" on some hypothetical deal in the near future we would see a reimposition of sanctions? Sure . . . there would be endless debate within the West over whether the Iranians are cheating, and if so whether that cheating rises to the level of new sanctions, especially since the Iranians are just about to order some Airbus aircraft, and to let Repsol have an oil contract and, and . . . won't happen. Remember those "red lines"?

Iran 1 - Civilization 0