Tuesday, March 31, 2015

Cruising the Web

An Iranian defector speaks the truth that the Obama White House wishes would stay hidden.
An Iranian journalist writing about the nuclear negotiations between the United States and Iran has defected. In an interview Amir Hossein Motaghi, has some harsh words for his native Iran. He also has a damning indictment of America's role in the nuclear negotiations.

“The U.S. negotiating team are mainly there to speak on Iran’s behalf with other members of the 5+1 countries and convince them of a deal," Motaghi told a TV station after just defecting from the Iranian delegation while abroad for the nuclear talks.
This is what Obama's dream of ending strife in the Middle East has come to. We are now the mouthpiece for Iran.

This defector also has told us more about what it is like to be a journalist in Iran.
“There are a number of people attending on the Iranian side at the negotiations who are said to be journalists reporting on the negotiations,” he told Irane Farda television. “But they are not journalists and their main job is to make sure that all the news fed back to Iran goes through their channels.

“My conscience would not allow me to carry out my profession in this manner any more.” Mr Mottaghi was a journalist and commentator who went on to use social media successfully to promote Mr Rouhani to a youthful audience that overwhelmingly elected him to power.

But he was also subject to the bitter internal arguments within the Iranian regime. One news website claimed he had been forced in to report to the ministry of intelligence weekly, and that he had been tipped off that he might be subject to arrest had he returned to Tehran.




The National Journal traces how Hillary Clinton's henchmen work to try to manipulate her coverage.
Media Matters, a liberal media watchdog group, is part of Clinton hater-turned-helper David Brock's three-pronged empire. American Bridge is dedicated to tracking conservative candidates and doing opposition research. Correct the Record works to preempt any attacks Clinton may have to weather. And Media Matters is focused on monitoring conservative (and mainstream) media outlets to point out "misinformation" in the press on topics from climate change to gun control to presidential politics.

It's often easy to trace Media Matters' influence on a major news story, and you can see that with the coverage of Clinton's email use at the State Department. Media Matters called the New York Times story, which broke March 2, "deceptive," and Brock wrote a letter to the paper asking for a correction.

The Times eventually did walk back its original Clinton story a bit (although public editor Margaret Sullivan called Brock's complaints "over-the-top"). One recent Media Matters story questioned whether the paper—not exactly a right-wing outlet—is "gearing up for more Clinton warfare".
Sound like a vast left-wing conspiracy?

And Carl Cannon details how Clinton supporters have a list of words that they don't want the media to be allowed to say because they have determined that such words are sexist.
You are on notice that we will be watching, reading, listening and protesting coded sexism," read the missive from “HRC Super Volunteers.”

Then came the list of words and phrases constituting “coded sexism,” at least to HRC Super Volunteers: "polarizing," "calculating," "disingenuous," "insincere," "ambitious," "inevitable," "entitled" and "over-confident." Nearly doubling George Carlin’s list of “7 Dirty Words,” Clinton’s loyalists added "secretive" and "will do anything to win,” “represents the past,” “out of touch” and “tone deaf.”
It is such a bizarre effort that Cannon concludes that only a Republican or Elizabeth operative would launch such a campaign. But these are just the depths which the combination of modern feminism and the Clintons have brought us.



David Brooks is concerned that Ted Cruz represents "the new era of performance politics" because he "hasn't done much governing in his life but he's done a lot of performing." I might actually agree with Brooks there, although Cruz has argued successfully at the Supreme Court. But it's a bit rich coming from David Brooks who was so very impressed by the Barack Obama of 2008. What in the world had that Barack Obama ever done besides performance politics? he had absolutely no governing experience and was more known for voting "present" and giving speeches than for actually accomplishing anything. The guy who told us how impressed he was with the crease in barack Obama's pants and how he knew back in 2006 that Obama would be a "very good president" because he seemed so very smart and who makes his living being the pet conservative at the TYT and on PBS should never be allowed to tell Republicans who would or would not be a good candidate.



Thomas Sowell encapsulates exactly why Obama's kowtowing to Iran is so very dangerous.
Why is Barack Obama so anxious to have an international agreement that will have no legal standing under the Constitution just two years from now, since it will be just a presidential agreement, rather than a treaty requiring the “advice and consent” of the Senate?

There are at least two reasons. One reason is that such an agreement will serve as a fig leaf to cover his failure to do anything that has any serious chance of stopping Iran from going nuclear. Such an agreement will protect Obama politically, despite however much it exposes the American people to unprecedented dangers.

The other reason is that, by going to the United Nations for its blessing on his agreement with Iran, he can get a bigger fig leaf to cover his complicity in the nuclear arming of America’s most dangerous enemy. In Obama’s vision, as a citizen of the world, there may be no reason why Iran should not have nuclear weapons when other nations have them.

Politically, President Obama could not just come right out and say such a thing. But he can get the same end result by pretending to have ended the dangers by reaching an agreement with Iran. There have long been people in the Western democracies who hail every international agreement that claims to reduce the dangers of war.

The road to World War II was strewn with arms control agreements on paper that aggressor nations ignored in practice. But those agreements lulled the democracies into a false sense of security that led them to cut back on military spending while their enemies were building up the military forces to attack them.

The WSJ presents its brackets of Republican candidates.



Michael Barone reminds us of the political origins of Obama's "red line" remarks on Syria.
“We know they don’t need to have an underground, fortified facility like Fordo in order to have a peaceful program,” Mr. Obama said of the Iranians in an interview with Haim Saban, the Israeli-American billionaire philanthropist. “They certainly don’t need a heavy-water reactor at Arak in order to have a peaceful nuclear program. They don’t need some of the advanced centrifuges that they currently possess in order to have a limited, peaceful nuclear program.”
And now all the reports are that we're going to allow Iran to continue to run its program at Fordo and Arak. We've given up on any sort of true verification when the IAEA tells us that they can't verify whether Iran is telling the truth about their nuclear program and is refusing to allow snap inspections of Iran's nuclear sites. And Iran's production of ballistic missiles are reportedly off the table. It's a horrific list of how much the administration is giving up to Iran.
Some readers may object that Iran has made its own significant concessions. Except it hasn’t. They may also claim that the U.S. has no choice but to strike a deal. Except we entered these negotiations with all the strong cards. We just chose to give them up.

Finally, critics may argue that I’m being unfair to the administration, since nobody knows the agreement’s precise terms. But that’s rich coming from an administration that refuses to negotiate openly, lest the extent of its diplomatic surrender be prematurely and fatally exposed.

Nearly a century ago Woodrow Wilson insisted on “open covenants of peace, openly arrived at, after which there shall be no private international understandings of any kind but diplomacy shall proceed always frankly and in public view.” Barack Obama prefers to capitulate to tyrants in secret. Judging from the above, it’s no wonder.

Bret Stephens reminds us what President Obama promised us back in December 2013 about what he would never give up in negotiation with Iran.

And the administration can't even get an American pastor who has been imprisoned for two and a half years in Iran because he is a Christian. Why didn't they demand Iran release him as a precursor for the negotiations?

No comments: