Posts Tagged ‘Iran’

Obama, Kneeling before Iran

Posted by Troy on 24th August 2016 in Current Events, Political

It is obvious, at this point, that Obama was willing to do anything to “achieve an Iran deal.”  I’m not entirely sure what kind of achievement this is…

Let’s just look at the facts:

1 – We made nuclear deal that pretty much just legitimizes what the Iranians were doing anyway.

2 – We gave them 400 million dollars.

3 – Realizing that he would look like a total douche if he gave away 400 million while they held prisoners, he demanded the prisoner release be made in conjunction with the money transfer, turning it into a ransom situation.  We have seen an increase in American kidnappings since this deal.

4 – Afterwards, we gave Iran $1.3 billion dollars.  This was paid in 13 payments of $99,999,999.99.  In other words, if they had paid 100 million dollars, he probably would have had to tell Congress about it.

5 – Realizing that the US is a joke, Iran has been talking trash and have been buzzing our ships with their little row boats.  Obama can’t make a fuss about anything because “Hey, I harbored in a new period of cooperation with Iran.”  Iran has also been pretty much ignoring all the rules set out I his precious “Iran Deal.”

So, in summary: Iran got a bunch of money, economic sanctions lifted, and increase prestige on the world stage, and we got nothing.  Worse than that, we paid handsomely.  Well…at least we got the 4 Americans back.  We did get that.

Here’s how a strong leader would have done things.  “We are willing to negotiate on the sanctions.  Release the prisoners first, and then we can see about working out our differences.”  The prisoner release should have been the precondition to the negotiations, not as a final demand to prevent Obama from looking like the weak, feckless President that he is.

Long Live the Constitution.

Iran Ransom

Posted by Troy on 3rd August 2016 in Current Events, Political

When we were negotiating the Iran Nuclear Deal, Obama delivered 400 million dollars.  His cover story was that the 400 million was money the sheik paid to America in exchange for arms in the 1970s before the Iranian Revolution and Iran taking our embassy hostage.  We feared that the international court would find against us and charge u s ten billion dollars, so we decided to settle for 1.7 billion.  This 400 million was merely the down payment.

First, this was clearly a ransom.  We pay the money right before the prisoners were released?  Even if it wasn’t a ransom, the timing, de facto, made it a ransom in the eyes of Iran.  If it’s viewed as a ransom in the criminal’s eyes, it’s a ransom.  It’s a ransom.  It’s that simple.  So, by paying this amount, we have set a precedence that the US gives money for US hostages.  As such, do not travel abroad.

Second, this is exactly my point about international organizations.  What the hell do we care what an international court says?  “You need to pay a terrorist nation 10 billion dollars.”  The only acceptable answer is: “____ you.  We are NOT paying a country that sponsors terrorism any money, especially considering they took our people hostage.  If you don’t like that, maybe the UN’s army should try to come take it… oh wait… WE ARE the UN army.  Ha.  Go ____ yourself.”

Third, why does no one care?  Trump makes an off-comment about “a gold star mother,” and the news media goes nuts.  Trump’s comments don’t make any difference about anything really important.  Hillary “negotiated” the Iran deal.  In effect, she set a dangerous precedence that puts additional American lives at stake, fast tracks Iran’s nuclear capability, and gives the largest state sponsor of terror huge sums of money.  Hell, even Josh Earnest couldn’t deny that the money might be used to sponsor terror.  Just totally wrote it off, it it didn’t matter.

Long Live the Constitution!

Iran Deal

Posted by Troy on 21st July 2015 in Current Events, Political

Are we crazy?

I think we are crazy.  Our Founding Fathers told us not to get involved with other countries’ problems.  This changed with Woodrow Wilson, and was succeeded by Theodore Roosevelt.  What followed what a series of escalating foreign involvement that we never should have gotten involved in. War World II was the last war we really had any business fighting.  Political involvement has lead to the Korean War, the Vietnam War, our meddling in Iran in 1953, our setting up Sadam in Iraq, our toppling Sadam in Iraq, the evolution of ISIS, the toppling of various dictators and supplanting of Muslim extremists in several countries, and etc etc etc.  Query: when has our meddling ever ended in OUR favor?

For the record, I am against the UN.  What sense does it make to be a part of a group that allows enemy countries to have a say?  Then for us to fund said group?  And to give up control of our military to said group?  And to defer the Constitution to the will of said group?  I would vote for ANYONE that said “**** the UN.  We quit.”

I believe we have been sold this deal because Russia and China have said, “Sign up, or else.”  China’s economy is is the toilet right now.  Cheap oil might bring them around.  Russia’s economy is in the toilet right now; they want to sell arms to the Iranians.  Britain and France also would benefit from cheaper oil.  In all cases, none of of these countries are dealing with a country that espouses “Death to” their country.

Iran is like Russia or China.  They will break any deal.  They will agree to whatever terms that benefits them, and then they will ignore the treaty as soon as it suits them.  We gain NOTHING in this deal.  There is no benefit for America.  There is benefit to Iran and to other countries that want more oil.  That’s it.  And that’s all well and good, if we felt like Iran can be trusted, but right now, Iran is saying that they are not going to honor the treaty with America.  Bleep, so why sign?  Are we crazy?  We must be.

The funnest part is that after 15 years, Iran has the green light, under this treaty, to make nuclear weapons.  However, Iran has told us that “We’re not gonna do that.”  Oh, well, at least we have that.  It’s not even in writing or anything, but their assurance means the world to us.

This thing is going to end badly.  Look for Iran to have nuclear weapons in 15 years (maybe sooner since I’m sure that they will not abide by the treaty anyway).  The Saudis will also have nukes.  They will have to.  It’s just like India and Pakistan.  When you’re mortal enemy has nukes, you gotta have nukes too.  Heaven forbid that ISIS manages to take over these places.  Iran is also a large sponsor of terror.  Letting them make nuclear material just begs for dirty bombs too.

I don’t know what the answer is.  We messed up as soon as we decided to the policemen of the world.  It’s too vast a job.  All we’ve done is expended resources needlessly and generate hate for our own country.  We should have just minded our own business and maintained our strength and said, “If you wanna blow yourselves up, fine, but don’t come over here.  We will kick your @$$.”

That’s why I’m voting for Rand Paul in the primary.  Isolationism rules.

Long Live the Constitution!

Obama calls for greater regulations on oil futures

Posted by Troy on 17th April 2012 in Current Events, Political

Obama blames the higher gas prices on speculators on oil futures.  His contention is that the futures traders manipulate the price of oil for their own gain as opposed to the good of all Americans.

First of all, it is important to note that I seriously doubt this is the case.  As with all transactions, there are winners and losers in futures.  This is like declaring that an individual investor manipulates the price of stocks.  There is one party who is losing on the trade and another winning on the trade.  Likewise, one person in the future’s contract is going to be a winner and the other is going to be a loser.  The only way his argument holds water is if the futures trader can force the other party to enter into a losing transaction.

Secondly, future contracts are merely a financial tool.  Investors are basically betting on if a commodity is going to be higher or lower at a fixed point in time.  Even if futures were completely done away with, financiers would figure out a way to mimic futures contracts.  I would be hard pressed to demonize people for using futures contracts.  Ask a farmer if future contracts should be eliminated.  Without futures contracts, many family farms would go bust over night.  So that would leave just making oil futures illegal, which is pretty silly and juvenile.

Third, the reason speculators are expecting oil prices to spike stem directly from Obama’s actions with the oil pipeline, dealings with OPEC, and a looming conflict with Iran.  Until the Iran Nuke issue is settled out, there is going to be uncertainty.

Fourth, it is doubtful that “reforming” futures contracts would affect the actual price of oil over the long term.  It may make prices less volatile, but that’s about it.

Finally, it sounds to me that what Obama’s real gripe is that the market is setting prices.  It makes his administration look bad when prices go up due to his policies.  It would appear that supply and demand should be managed and prices set.  This, of course, used to be called Fascism.  It’s been close to 100 years since we’ve seen real Fascism, so maybe people have forgotten what it looks like.  When you look at Obama’s policies of deciding what kind of insurance you should have, what kind of cars we should drive, price controls on oil, what kind of energy we should invest in, and his National Defense Resources Preparedness Executive Order (which gives the Executive branch the ability to control the allocation of resources during peacetime or war) shows what I have always said, Obama is a Fascist with a capital F.  Bush may have been a fascist with a lower case F, but Obama is a Fascist because he believes that Fascism is a good idea.

Long Live the Constitution!

http://economywatch.msnbc.msn.com/_news/2012/04/17/11246689-obamas-oil-market-plan-more-politics-than-substance?lite

http://thecollegeconservative.com/2012/03/19/executive-order-national-defense-resources-preparedness/

State of the Union Speech

Posted by Troy on 24th January 2012 in Current Events, Political

Where do I begin?

For starters, his concepts about American manufacturing, American energy, and American Values.

Unless he wants to do away with the minimum wage, we are not going to have a lot of manufacturing jobs.  I suppose he could set out some prohibitive tariffs, but I doubt he has the guts, and it’s debatable as to the wisdom of that move.  He just shut down the Keystone pipeline and hasn’t allowed American companies to drill for oil, so he really loses a lot of credibility on this issue.  I suppose that he could say that he is very pro-American GREEN energy, which is not cost effective right now.  The fact of the matter is, if you agree that there’s a finite amount of oil in the world and we should be researching new energy to be ahead of the curve, then you should be for pumping as much crude as we can and use the profits to fund these projects so that we will use up the supply of a soon to be obsolete energy source.  As to American values, Obama’s perspective of American values runs counter to most of American.  Hell, his wife once commented that America was a “downright mean country.”  She also said that “for the first time in her adult life, she was proud of [her] country.”  Inferring Barrack’s beliefs should be fairly easy…he did marry her after all.

The President discussed everyone paying their fair share.  Here’s a quick question, what is a fair share?  How much of your own money should you be allowed to keep?  How fair is it for someone to take money from you and give it directly to another person for their own PERSONAL welfare?  The government is supposed to provide for the common welfare.  Do you know how taxes were supposed to be levied?  The Constitution said that the government could only take taxes directly from the states based on their share of the nation’s population.  It also only allowed for money to be in gold and silver.  Here’s a question, if the federal government only used gold and silver, was only responsible for those activities mandated by the Constitution, and could only tax based on the original schematics, would we be in this mess?  That’s Ron Paul’s point entirely.

I was sickened by Obama’s positive spin on some very dangerous acts.  He wants to do away with the filibuster.  Why?  Because it stops the Leftist agenda.  The fact of the matter is that his ideas are terrible, and that is why he needs a super-majority to win.  Of course, he wants the Dream Act passed immediately so that he can get the Latino vote.  Finally, there’s the takeover of the internet–all to control the information we see.  2084 isn’t too far away.

In another matter, what is with all the executive orders?  How can he wave a pen and make the military run on green energy?  How is he funding it without Congressional approval?  For that matter, when the hell is the Congress going to pass a budget?  Am I the only one that’s sick and tired of not having a budget?

Dear Lord, how many countries are we at war with or about to be at war with?  A thought occurred to me today…if the Founding Fathers could see how we were today, how would they feel about the constant state of war we find ourselves in?  I seriously doubt they would approve of us going to war without Congressional approval.  The fact of the matter is, none of these conflicts are popular enough with the American people where Congressmen would dare vote for a war.  This is why we’ve decided not to have the Constitution get in the way.  And here again, this is Ron Paul’s point.  I just wish he was better at projecting it.  Sadly, I think we are probably lock into some sort of conflict in Iran.  At least we are trying to use sanctions instead of military might (although they are typically ineffective).  As Sun Tzu said, it is best to deal with your enemies first by influence and the last resort is to invade them.

The last point I want to make is this: What is the deal with the lighting?  What, were they going for the “rays of light through a cloud”/God smiling upon Obama?  The only thing missing was a choir singing.  Bah!

Long Live the Constitution!

The Problem with Ron Paul

Posted by Troy on 20th December 2011 in Current Events, Political

I think the real problem with Ron Paul is that he does a bad job of defending his positions.  I think this is because he is trying to make clever quips like Newt does.  For instance:

“Why do we care if Iran gets a nuke?”

What he probably means to say is:

“Look, they are going to keep trying to get a nuke.  The only way to stop them, really, is to go to war and wipe them off the face of the Earth.  The cost of this war will probably be hundreds of billions of dollars (if not a trillion) and 20,000 dead troops.  We can do this, or we can tell them, “If you get a nuke and use it, we are going to use our own nukes against you and wipe you off the face of the Earth.  If you try to invade another country, we will be there to confront you as well.  As you can see, there is no real benefit for spending the money for the bomb because, if you use it, you’re dead.  Thank you.”

Few countries are as bat shit crazy as North Korea, and not even they used the bomb on their enemies because we will blow them off the map and they know it.

If Ron Paul would phrase his arguments this way, I think people would like him more.

Droning on and on

Posted by Troy on 8th December 2011 in Current Events

Iran now has our most sophisticated drone and is sharing it with China and Russia.  Great!  Obama had an opportunity to destroy it but opted not to because it would have been deemed an act of war.  Great!

It’s funny that the drone actually LANDED in one piece isn’t it?  I mean, I would have rigged all of those with a self-destruct mechanism where in, if they stop getting signals from the command center for more than ten minutes, it blows to bits.  It’s not that far fetch an idea is it?  So the question becomes: is this intentional and we have an active traitor in the White House or is he just that damn incompetent?  I honestly cannot say.  I think that the people BEHIND him are definitely for the fall of America, but I cannot say if he wants it or if he is just a very useful idiot.

Next, this is not the end of the world.  Remember, Francis Gary Powers LANDED a U2 spy plane in Russia despite a multitude of options and orders to destroy it.  He just walked away from it, allowing it to be captured by the Russians.  Control societies will always fall on the ash heap of history because it destroys the human spirit and creativity.  All they can do is steal innovation, not create their own.  In this way, they are like Satan, merely perverting God’s creations instead of creating their own.

Long Live the Constitution!

Hikers Released From Iran: Can we send them back?

Posted by Troy on 26th September 2011 in Current Events

They get off the plane.  Reports swarm them, waiting to hear the phrase we’re all waiting for:

“Thank God we’re home,” or, “Thank God we’re free,” or any variation thereof.  We all expected that they would be thankful to be free and have a newfound understand of living in freedom.  Instead, we were treated to:

“Two years in prison is too long and we sincerely hope for the freedom of other political prisoners and other unjustly imprisoned people in America and Iran,” by Bauer.

What political prisoners are they speaking of in America?  The only possible conclusion is that they could be talking about those people in Gitmo.  I should think that there is a fair amount of difference between trying to kill soldiers and hiking in the mountains.  Most of the people who could be considered “Political Prisoners” are in jail probably on such charges as murder and arson and other charges.  You know why that is?  Because we have a jury based justice system.  You cannot convince a jury of 12 to sentence someone because they are a Democrat.  You can, however, do something like that in Iran. 

I will give one out for this statement.  If he is talking about American citizens who have been detained in regards to the Patriot Act and never charged with a crime or afforded a jury trial, I will agree.  However, I do not extend Constitutional protections to aliens who are here illegally and those who have voided the conditions of their visas (such as by plotting to kill Americans).  However, I will always defend these rights for each and every American.  I don’t care if they plotted to kill millions of people.

Long Live the Constitution!