Beyond the Cusp

December 20, 2015

Why Iranian Nuclear Program Matters

 

President Obama would like the world to believe that there was a nuclear deal reached, signed, sealed and delivered to the Security Council and set into stone. There are a few problems with that story line, namely the Iran part of the deal. The part of the nuclear deal which is valid is that the sanctions have been lifted, Iran is back in the oil and pistachio business while European companies are tripping over each other in a race to sign deals with Iran and get their share of the billions which are going to be flowing when Iran receives the monies the United States is obligated to release from banks and investment accounts. The deal passed by the Security Council made the European and United States parts of the deal sealed and delivered and sent the Iranian part of the deal to Iran where it was graciously received and filed in the nearest wastebasket. Think back and try to remember the conflicting news reports from those final days of the Iran nuclear negotiations with the P5+1 consisting of Russia, China, Britain, France, the United States plus Germany and think back to the celebratory language and you might remember that the Obama White House and State Department were claiming one set of conditions, the Europeans had their version, Russia and China made very few statements with some in interviews with Western news interviews revealing that they were uncertain on a number of issues in Moscow and Beijing remaining mute and Iran claiming an entirely different interpretation and having doubts that the remaining difficulties would ever be bridged. I’m not sure those differences were ever ironed out nor does it appear that Iran has ever considered themselves to have made any promises to the Western World or the United Nations or anybody else. For the record, the Iranian parliament has never approved any deal that the United States or anybody else can honestly report and Iranian President Hassan Rouhani has never signed any paperwork for a deal and thus Iran is not legally bound to anything just as the State Department freely admitted in a letter to Representative Mike (R-Kan.) of the House Intelligence Committee.

 

This admission simply echoes the actions by Tehran which has now made two test launches of ballistic missiles which would have definitively been forbidden by any deal admitted to exist by any of the Western Nations as well as the United Nations interpretations of the agreement, but nobody appears to be rearing up in reaction to these tests. There has been no ‘snapback’ of sanctions and the releasing of funds as theoretically agreed upon by western Nations in any version of a deal is proceeding along on schedule. Are we the only ones who seem concerned that there appears to be an agreement to free the dogs of nuclear ambitions in Iran while obliging the West to release the funds and remove all sanctions which might have proven to be an impediment and chaining the United States and European nations to back the Russian, Chinese and Iranian desires for business as usual as if there is not a care in the world? A quick check of news stories and it seems the most recent testing of another nuclear delivery capable continental ballistic missile, the most powerful yet and a decent sign that Iran is aiming for Intercontinental Ballistic Missile (ICBM) capabilities and is going at such capabilities with some vigor does concern any number of responsible adults. Unfortunately the closest the White House has come to a responsible adult has been United Nations Ambassador Samantha Power who stated at a Congressional hearing last week, “discussions are a form of U.N. action.” So, apparently the White House left Congress and themselves no actual control over sanctions and thus the possible ‘snapback’ is solely in the hands of the United Nations where such is an impossibility and even if the United States acted, theirs would necessarily be a whole new set of sanctions which are presumably forbidden by the presumed deal which is no deal and the White House would necessarily, as they have stated, veto any such sanctions. So as it currently sits, Iran will receive their $150 billion in unfrozen assets within the next six months, can test missiles to their hearts’ delight and all are to proceed as if there are sanctions on Iran when in reality the sanctions are on the Western Powers making sanctions near to impossible and now even the IAEA has officially surrendered before the Iranian games of guile as we reported recently in What the IAEA Closure of Their Iran Investigations Really Meant.

 

What has been successfully pulled off by deceptiveness, chicanery and outright lies is the freeing of Europe to return to their preferred business as usual and ignore the consequences, a similar aspect to their recent receipt of the first wave of ‘Syrian refugees’ and intent to make them legal citizens almost automatically which will grant them new visas from their new home nation and also grant them instant acceptance on the visa waiver program the United States shares with the European Union. What could be better as it has been made obvious that the vast majority of these ‘Syrian refugees’ are not Syrian, are not refugees, are not dirt poor losing everything in the civil war and Bashir al-Assad’s butchery and are intent on infiltrating the United States as they see Europe rightfully as all but conquered already. What we do have as the vast majority of these ‘Syrian refugees’ are military age single males with plenty of money and a penchant for rioting and causing disturbances and will very likely prove to be the tip of the spear with the only question being are they Islamic State, al-Qaeda, Taliban, or Iranian IRGC (Iranian Revolutionary Guard Corps) trained infiltrators who have received some of the best training in sabotage and other disruptive acts and also master coordinators (community organizers on steroids). Whatever and whomever they are operating under, this sizeable sector of the ‘Syrian refugees’ who have poured into Europe, largely centered on Germany and the Scandinavian nations all of which have some of the best social services with the highest welfare payment structures in all of Europe, and with a fair share of the ‘Syrian refugees’ now headed to the final target on the list, the United Kingdom; their aims are becoming ever more clear, to bring Europe to its knees and then simply take charge of its remnants and turn it all over to whichever group manages to wrench control from the rest of the other groups. This simply means that the next front of the Syrian civil war turned Sunni-Shiite war will be being fought across Europe just as soon as the Christian and Atheist Secular Humanists have been murdered in large part or converted to Islam or converted to being good little worker Dhimmis producing for their new taskmasters. The alternative is a revolution by the Europeans themselves which will end very poorly for both sides as this will become very quickly a war of extermination and who will prove the strongest force and last group standing is in doubt though we would place our money on the home team as they know the landscape and will be fighting for their own survival and the survival of their way of life and the Europeans have proven their ability for warfare and the heritage to match. The question which needs answering is when, or should it be, will the European Union and the individual governments such as Angela Merkel’s Germany and François Hollande’s France wake from their utopian dream, which is proving to be a hellish nightmare for their people, before their nations are so overrun with ‘Syrian refugees’ that recovery has been made impossible? If not, does the average European have it within them to force their leaders to heed and save the lands before it is too late? The greatest of fears is that for Western Europe it may already be too late.

 

The other ramification of the ‘Syrian refugees’ problem is that with much of Eastern European nations, former Warsaw Pact nations plus Greece, have closed their borders allowing those who wish to take trains through to Germany and other points west with the train stations along the tracks well-guarded to force the ‘Syrian refugees’ through to all points west. What way will these nations be turning once NATO ceases to offer them any real protection? We see their returning to the Russian sphere of influence as Vladimir Putin (aka Vlad the Invader), offering a stronger arm in protecting them from the invading ‘Syrian refugees’ and all that encompasses, then turning to the seemingly feckless United States which has proven itself to be weak and unsupportive at best and traitorous at worst. Poland and the Czech Republic, despite being the victims of President Obama’s cancellation of the radar and anti-missile system which had been approved for delivery and operation on their bases, might hold out and wait to see who wins the 2016 United States elections though if pressed would likely seriously consider placing their bets on a sure thing, meaning Putin. And now we can probably name the three things which will be the Obama legacy; first, a nuclear armed Middle East tinderbox; second, a neutered United States military degraded to a point of near impotence; and third, removing any trust in the United States as her promises have been proven to be simply worthless if any change of administration can so abruptly and totally alter the realities and break any and all promises with allies apparently is just as easily done as it is with revolutions in third world nations. The last one which renders the United States as untrustworthy will prove to be the straw which breaks the camel’s back as if the word of the President of the United States is only good for as long as he or his party holds the Office of the President, then what worth does any Presidential promise hold? Even worse was that President Obama also went back on promises made by President Willian Jefferson Clinton which infers that even same party Presidencies may prove untrustworthy of keeping promises made by previous Presidents of their own party. One thing which has been made evidently obvious is that any nation relying on the United States to have their back had best also have their own Plan B just in case they find their back suddenly rendered vulnerable as their strongest protection of their back having quit and gone home prematurely. Further, depending on the United States to actually produce and make good on promises of weapons systems being completely dependent on any new President continuing with the production or delivery of promised systems should put the fear of heaven in them as the anti-missile systems and radar cancelled and the premature stoppage of production of the F-22 Raptor proved as that was the fighter the United States was counting on for granting her air superiority over any other nation, something the F-35 joint strike fighter does not and may even prove to be less of a fifth generation fighter when compared to the Eurofighter Typhoon or the Russian Sukhoi Su-27.

 

 

Picture of F22 Raptor, F35 Joint Strike Fighter, Eurofighter Typhoon or the Russian Sukhoi Su-27

 

 

These are the lasting legacies of President Obama and they will all but destroy the faith in the world of any United States President for some time into the future until trust can be proven or given a legal basis. The only item which may be seen as trustworthy might be actual treaties which have the full backing of the congress and the Courts, including especially the Supreme Court and as such may be proven to be beyond the reach of any American President to negate by his or her own power without running afoul of the Courts and Congress. Even this will need to be seen by those who have been burnt the most by this administration and its complete disregard for precedent, Presidential respect for and by other administrations and potentially the rule of law which would make even treaties only as good as the President and congress who made them and otherwise potentially worthless. The United States is going to have to face these issues and either find some manner of placing the nation behind the promises of their Presidents going forward when a new President takes the office and has a different view of the world and sees the promises of the predecessor as unbinding upon them, that must be changed if the United States ever desires to be respected and trusted ever again. Perhaps it is time for a previously unthought of and seemingly unnecessary Amendment to the United States Constitution which will state that once the President and the Congress have declared use of the United States military to undertake a task that from that point forward or until a supermajority of two-thirds of both houses of congress and the President together call the mission complete, the military will remain on stations until the military Joint Chiefs of Staff declare the mission completed. Such an amendment would restore faith that once the United States military was deployed that they would not simply pull out leaving whatever governance they left in place completely vulnerable and it will cause the Congress and President to carefully spell out the necessary accomplishments of every mission long before troops would be deployed. Both of these required changes in the way troops are deployed and returned from deployment would make for stricter definitions of any mission and a clear promise that once the United States troops are deployed and tasked with supporting any government until said time that it has been stabilized and completely functioning with domain over all of its nation that the United States will not just pull out leaving a huge sucking sound of a vacuum which will almost always be filled by other than savory forces. Such would give real meaning to any military promise given by the Congress and President when forces are deployed to a long term mission which will necessarily be passed to the next President and his administration which would be powerless to end the mission unless the military top level commanders determined the mission completed.

 

Beyond the Cusp

 

Advertisements

March 15, 2013

If We Save Only One Child’s Life

If We Save Only One Child’s Life

 

Senator Dianne Feinstein, President Barack Obama, Senate Majority Leader Harry Reid and the rest of the legions of gun-grabbers all have a love affair with the phrase, “If we save only one child’s life our efforts will be worth the time and trouble we spend fighting those Neanderthal gun-nuts.” There is the false claim that nobody needs these so-called “assault weapons” to hunt deer. There are two problems with this argument. First, no soldier in their right mind would take one of these so-called “assault weapons” into a combat situation when real assault weapons capable of sustained fire or burst mode are available thus the weapons in question are nothing like real assault weapons. Second, the Second Amendment is not about hunting or target shooting or any other recreational pursuit requiring firearms and these spiteful politicians know this full well but persist in lying hoping that we the people are ignorant enough to take their words for everything. Fortunately, many people have begun to wake to the real meaning behind the designs of the Constitution and the Bill of Rights. Most are also relearning the justifications and revolutionary concepts behind the Declaration of Independence. Some have even traced the ideas and ideals back through the political philosophers whose ideas were the inspirations behind much of the forming of the United States and have even traced the concept that man is a noble creature capable of self-rule all the way back to the Magna Carta. There are those who have also traced the concepts of individual liberty and that government is formed to serve the people and that those who rule, even kings and other nobility, are forbid to take treasure of any sort, not gold, silver, gems, horses, cattle or other excesses greater than any normal subject possesses which is contained in the Bible in Deuteronomy and other books. These people also have become aware that the Second Amendment was written to allow the people to restrict government whenever it became unwieldy and broke the original promises made to the people and instead began to be an oppressive burden. To this end the Second Amendment was written to allow the common people to own the same weaponry as was utilized by any who were in the service of the government including the military or any form of law enforcement. This little truth puts the lie to the myth of legal gun control in the United States.

 

Unfortunately, far too many citizens in the great lands of the United States have settled into a comfort where they prefer to allow the government to usurp many of the responsibilities which the Founding Fathers took great care in assuring that such power would remain with the people to the extent that the United States Constitution forbade the government these powers. But as the people came to live in great concentrations in large cities, even megalopolises, they no longer provided for themselves in the same manner as the founding generation. No longer do most Americans ever meet the farmers and herders who raise their food. They often do not even know the people who live on their block, let alone most of those who reside in their community and definitely not the entire city. They have become cogs in a large machine. With this change the people no longer know the people who represent them in the government, not even the city government who are supposed to be the closest government to the people and the one that most affects their lives. Reading the United States Constitution and the Bill of Rights and one realizes exactly what President Obama meant when he described the Constitution as a document of negative rights. He did not mean it denied the people of rights but that it forbid the government from growing or performing beyond strict limitations. The most striking evidence of this concept is contained in the Bill of Rights with the Tenth Amendment being the most glaring evidence of limiting the Federal Government. It reads, “The powers not delegated to the United States by the Constitution, nor prohibited by it to the States, are reserved to the States respectively, or to the people.” You probably could not find a better or more forceful way to state that the Federal Government is prohibited from exercising powers or jurisdictions beyond some strict limitations. The exceptions to the limitations are spelled out within the constitution and anything not listed there as a power permitted to the Federal Government or strictly forbidden for the States to perform, then the Federal Government may not exercise such powers. When reading the Bill of Rights you see that there are distinct rights listed which are granted to the people and the Federal Government is forbidden to curtail or limit these freedoms. Adding to the Tenth Amendment is the Ninth Amendment which reads, “The enumeration in the Constitution, of certain rights, shall not be construed to deny or disparage others retained by the people.” This plainly grants that the rights of the people are limitless and beyond the power of the Federal Government to constrain, limit, or otherwise deny the innumerable rights which are granted to the people by the right of personhood. Such a powerful statement is one that was intended to warn politicians and public servants that they only held power at the permission of the peoples and the peoples did not have to turn to government for their freedom as it was theirs independent of the government and guaranteed by the Constitution and the Bill of Rights.

 

Some claim that the most powerful of the Amendments in the Bill of Rights is the First Amendment which contains five freedoms placed beyond the reach of government. The First Amendment reads “ Congress shall make no law respecting an establishment of religion, or prohibiting the free exercise thereof; or abridging the freedom of speech, or of the press; or the right of the people peaceably to assemble, and to petition the Government for a redress of grievances.” These rights allow the individual great amounts of personal power over their life and to express their beliefs and opinions free of government influences or limitations; express grievance with the government and expect the government to respond and correct or repair damages or other infringements; report news and political opinions without restrictions or censorship by the government; and lastly to assemble in pursuit of goals or activities free of government limitations. The rest of the Bill of Rights has more restrictions limiting the government from injecting itself or its limitations and restrictions over the individual or group of individuals. The problem which people had always faced in restraining government came about as the government always had held all the power over the people and the people were unarmed. The government having all of the arms could even act beyond limitations which were supposedly established on them by founding documents or other legal writings. This was the entire concept behind the Second Amendment, to arm the people as well and as powerfully as was the government thus making the people the equal and not the subjects. The phrase that has found favor with many supporters of the Second Amendment is a quote attributed to Thomas Jefferson which reads, “ When governments fear the people, there is liberty. When the people fear the government, there is tyranny. The strongest reason for the people to retain the right to keep and bear arms is, as a last resort, to protect themselves against tyranny in government.” Now tell Senator Dianne Feinstein and President Barack Obama to leave our guns alone and simply inquire as to what part of “shall not be infringed” they do not understand.

 

Beyond the Cusp

 

January 8, 2013

What if There was Press Control?

What if the Congress were debating the perceived biases of the press in the United States evidenced in the last elections, coverage of the Middle East, and a general disdain for firearms? Witnesses were called who advertised their position not as anti-First Amendment but rather just desire to make the press more responsible in meeting their proscribed purpose of factual, nonbiased, straightforward reporting of the stone cold truth without any unnecessary editorializing with an allowable exception for editorials. They only want to allow the public to have warning when the reports they were receiving were opinions slanting the news to fit a preconceived orientation of the presenter and requiring that all presentations of actual news that contained opinion without expressly identifying as such would have to provide another presenter from the opposing view. Exceptions would only be made for presentations and reporting that expressly indicated their bias or orientation so that the viewer would be forewarned and could make an intelligent determination if they wished to partake of news expressing such a view. They simply wanted the press to be responsible and honest with the public they were supposed to be serving and not deceiving.

I have a feeling that such a position would be ridiculed in the press in every possible format being derided as unnecessary and full of denials of the existence of any bias or slant in the news reporting, they simply were tailoring their language in the newscasts and reporting to fit their audience. Anybody claiming any biases or slant to the news was simply being overly critical and was likely the kind of people who would try and have an overt influence in political matters which the news reporting would make difficult. There would be screams that the people need their reporting to inform them what events and items meant and that the press had to remain untethered and unrestricted in order to fully inform the people and assist them to form ideas necessary for the good of the nation. People needed the service provided by the value added reporting if they were going to continue to keep an active interest in the events that affected their lives. If restrictions were placed on the press such that they could not supply fleshed out stories and were restricted to simple facts without any embellishment they would not be able to provide an interesting presentation and thus the people would not be properly informed. The mantra against any restraints on the press called for a full capacity press and was dead against a limited capacity press restrained to just boring numbers and dry facts that would rob the news of any flesh and personality.

Meanwhile, the people pushing for a facts and numbers reporting had the catchy slogans, “All the facts all the time,” and “The facts and just the facts.” Their answer when challenged that they desired to short the rights granted by the Constitution and the Bill of Rights by pointing out they fully believe in the freedoms of the First Amendment and would not think of making the press illegal but claim they simply wish to make sane modifications and place some proper restraints. They simply want the straight facts without the extra content and such content is not necessary and superfluous and not guaranteed by the First Amendment. Certainly people would be just as well informed without opinions and slanted definitions as if the people do not understand some concept or words, they could always look such things up. People are not helpless and would be better off if the extra capacity news were pared back to simply facts.

All right, this would be ridiculous but so is restricting the size of clips for weapons or banning certain weapons because they look scary. Would it be much different if one of these maniacs had two fifteen round clips and instead had to use three ten round clips? Here is a question which the average gun control adherent would not be able to answer, which weapon has a faster muzzle speed, speed of bullet when leaving the barrel, a thirty caliber hunting rifle or the AK assault weapon of the same caliber? Since the average hunting rifle has a longer barrel, the hunting rifle has a higher muzzle velocity and thus a greater range and better accuracy which means it has lethal potential over a greater distance? Who would have thought that? The last question is what was the intents and reasoning by the Founding Fathers when they wrote the Second Amendment? Research this yourself as if you do not already know you would likely not believe my answer. The reason has something to do with the concept that where the government fears the people, then you have freedom, but where the people fear the government, you have tyranny. Think about that while you seek the reasoning behind the Second Amendment and after you realize their intent you might think that you should be allowed to own a heavy battle tank and park it legally in your driveway. You would never look at a traffic backup the same.

Beyond the Cusp

Next Page »

Blog at WordPress.com.