“This site is dedicated to preying on peoples vanity, ignorance, or loneliness, gaining their trust and betraying them without remorse.”

Tuesday, July 07, 2015

Update on Iran Negotiations



Russia, World Powers to Continue Negotiations on Iran Nuclear Deal


VIENNA — Iran and six major powers, including Russia, will keep negotiating past Tuesday's deadline for a long-term nuclear agreement as they tackle the most contentious issues, including the continuation of a UN arms embargo on Iran, the big powers said.
"We are continuing to negotiate for the next couple of days. This does not mean we are extending our deadline," EU foreign policy chief Federica Mogherini said outside the hotel where the talks between Iran, Britain, China, France, Germany, Russia and the United States are taking place.
The spokeswoman for the U.S. delegation, Marie Harf, said the terms of an interim deal between Iran and the six would be extended through Friday to give negotiators a few more days to finish their work.
"We're frankly more concerned about the quality of the deal than we are about the clock, though we also know that difficult decisions won't get any easier with time," Harf said. "That is why we are continuing to negotiate."
Russian Foreign Minister Sergei Lavrov said there was "every reason" to believe a deal would be done within "a few days", and that there was an "understanding" that most of the current sanctions against Iran would be lifted.
"There is only one big problem in terms of sanctions — it is the problem of a weapons embargo," he told journalists, according to the news agency Interfax.
He said it was important to reach agreement on this as soon as possible, telling journalists that "ending the bans on supplies to Iran of the weapons required to fight terrorism is a very, very relevant objective."
It is the fourth time the parties have extended the terms of the interim deal, which was struck in November 2013 and provided Iran with limited sanctions relief in exchange for a halt to the production of uranium enriched to a purity level of 20 percent.
Extension Extended
The comprehensive deal under discussion is aimed at curbing Tehran's most sensitive nuclear work for a decade or more, in exchange for relief from economic sanctions that have slashed Iran's oil exports and crippled its economy.
The negotiators missed a June 30 deadline for a final agreement and then gave themselves until Tuesday.
"We are interpreting in a flexible way our deadline, which means that we are taking the time, the days we still need, to finalize the agreement," Mogherini said, adding that there remained several difficult issues to resolve.
Among these, officials said, are Iranian demands for a UN arms embargo and ballistic missiles sanctions to be lifted, the timing of U.S. and EU sanctions relief, and disagreements over future Iranian nuclear research and development.
"We have entered the most difficult, but also the most real, part of the negotiations," Mogherini added.
"We knew it would be difficult, challenging and sometimes hard and some things get tense and others we make progress."
She said foreign ministers now in Vienna might come and go.
"Don't get too excited if you see ministers leaving. They might come back. They will come back. And it doesn't mean that we are stopping the work we are doing inside. On the contrary, on the contrary."
French Foreign Minister Laurent Fabius confirmed that he would leave, and return to Vienna on Wednesday night.
The United States and its allies fear Iran is using its civilian nuclear program as a cover to develop a nuclear weapons capability. Iran says its program is peaceful.
An agreement would be the most important milestone in decades towards easing hostility between the United States and Iran, enemies since Iranian revolutionaries captured 52 hostages in the U.S. embassy in Tehran in 1979.
A deal would also reduce the chances of a U.S. military strike against Iran's nuclear facilities, something Washington refuses to rule out, and of a wider regional war.

110 comments:

  1. Iran’s approach to negotiating with the U.S. and five other international parties currently displaying a keen interest in how Tehran conducts its nuclear program isn’t informed only by concerns about the future of that program in and of itself.

    As The Guardian illustrated in an article published Sunday, the stakes involved in this latest power huddle in Vienna encompass more than even that hugely significant aspect of Iran’s sovereignty:

    “It is a big moment,” said Sadegh Zibakalam, a prominent reformist academic. “In years to come people will refer to this agreement as a landmark in modern Iranian history. It is of crucial importance that Iran has said: ‘OK, we are going to trust the west.’ If we reach an agreement with the US – the Great Satan – on an issue that divided us for more than a decade, it will be a huge transformation.”

    The impending deal looks like a triumph for Hassan Rouhani, elected president two years ago in place of the divisive Mahmoud Ahmadinejad, who ransacked government coffers to fund populist projects at home and outraged the world with his Holocaust denial. Still, everyone knows that Rouhani and his foreign minister, Javad Zarif, have the blessing of the supreme leader, Ayatollah Ali Khamenei, and that the regime desperately needs the agreement.

    Opponents warn of dire and far-reaching implications. “A segment of our political elite and intellectuals who believe Iran needs closer relations with the west think the 1979 revolution needs to finish,” said Foad Ezzadi, a Tehran University professor who describes himself as a “principalist” – or hardliner, in less elevated language. “They believe, as Henry Kissinger put it, that Iran needs to be a country, not a cause, … but if the agreement violates our principles there will be a backlash, not just from men in turbans but ordinary people who have a sense of national pride.”

    ReplyDelete
    Replies
    1. Meanwhile, U.S. Secretary of State John Kerry set the mood ahead of Tuesday’s big finish with a press conference in Vienna on Sunday, at which he made the accurate, if obvious, assessment that, although progress had been made in recent days, “it’s now time to see whether or not we are able to close an agreement.”

      And although his Iranian counterpart, Foreign Minister Mohammad Javad Zarif, remarked Friday that the two sides had “never been closer” to reaching a durable agreement, Kerry was careful to avoid talking as though the deal was about to be sealed.

      “If hard choices get made in the next couple of days, and made quickly,” Kerry allowed, “we could get an agreement this week. But if they are not made, we will not.”

      He added: “In the coming hours and days, we’re going to go as hard as we can.”

      —Posted by Kasia Anderson

      Delete
    2. Iranian Ground Force Commander Brigadier General Ahmad Reza Pourdastan said that even if a nuclear deal comes to fruition in Vienna, where Iranian and western negotiators are currently trying to reach an agreement by a Tuesday deadline, Tehran and Washington will not become friends.

      "The US might arrive at some agreements with us within the framework of the Group 5+1 (the US, Russia, China, Britain and France plus Germany), but we should never hold a positive view over the enemy," Iran's Fars News Agency quoted Pourdastan as saying.

      "Our enmity with them is over the principles and is rooted because we are after the truth and nations' freedom, but they seek exploiting nations and putting them in chains," he explained further.

      Trust, but verify. used to be the saying...

      Now it's "Trust, payoff and shut your eyes"

      Good luck with that..

      Delete
    3. John Kerry, almost 75 years to the day...

      Peace in our time...

      Chamberlain is best known for his appeasement foreign policy, and in particular for his signing of the Munich Agreement in 1938, conceding the German-speaking Sudetenland region of Czechoslovakia to Germany

      Delete
    4. "El que se arrodilla para conseguir la paz se queda con la humillación y con la guerra".

      Delete
    5. Exactly 75 years to the day, Ringo was born.

      Delete
  2. Both sides really, really want this deal. I can't see it failing. (it might, anything's possible, but I think the smart money has to be on it.)

    ReplyDelete
    Replies
    1. Obama wants this deal, Iran wants cash.....

      So what is the value of the "deal" IF Iran cheats?

      Like it has on all other agreements in the past....

      Hmm...

      What will the world do when another secret site is "discovered"?

      Not a dam thing...

      Delete
    2. Iran needs the agreement like Greece needs a bailout. So what's to negotiate?

      Delete
    3. Iran is the best of the worst in a real bad neighborhood. Iran had a democracy in the 1950s. The US put an end to that and thought it knew better than the Iranian people and installed the Shah. That resulted in an Islamic theocracy. Time will tell how it will end, but the US needs to get out of the Middle East and stay out. Mind our own business. Our record since the end of WWII has been one colossal fuck up after another. Since Bush II we have burned $5 trillion killed hundreds of thousands on what?

      Delete
    4. Well, we transformed Saddam's Baathist party into those wonderful junior varsity jokers named ISIS, coming to a failed European state soon.

      Delete
  3. .

    Trust, but verify. used to be the saying...

    You sound like a schoolgirl.

    Trust? The US would be a fool to trust Iran. Just as Iran would be a fool to trust the US. You don't sign these agreements because you want to be friends. You do it for pragmatic reasons. We have little choice.

    If Iran actually wants a bomb rather than just the capability to make one they will get the bomb. They will get it despite current sanctions. They will get it despite future sanctions. They will get it whether Israel bombs their current facilities or whether the US bombs them. We may be able to set them back a few years but they will still get it. The only way to put off their efforts for a considerable length of time is to invade. Despite its military superiority, Israel can't do it. And the US won't do it. Likely, can't do it, not only because the American people would be against it but because most of the world would be against it including some pretty big players. No, rather any further action against Iran will simply guarantee they would go after the bomb and get it. And if they did get it under any of the scenarios mentioned above, when they got it we can assume they would be pissed.

    Trust Hassan Rouhani? Hell, that would be like saying trust Bibi Netanyahu. Only a fool would do it.

    All we can do is get the best deal we can negotiate (I kinda doubt we have) and hope the Iranians put the end of sanctions and an opening to the West above any advantages they see from having a bomb.

    While other countries may view the situation differently, my concern is with the US. IMO, an agreement is in the best interest of the US. On the other hand, if the GOP or Israel manage to scuttle the deal I can only see things getting worse in the ME for US interests.

    .

    .

    ReplyDelete
    Replies
    1. Your comment?

      Was juvenile.

      Specious.

      Insulting....

      Par for the course.

      Delete
    2. .

      But what do you really think?

      .

      Delete
    3. I used to think better of you…

      Not anymore.

      Delete
    4. .

      That's unfortunate. But, look at your critique above.

      Juvenile? Well ok, I'm not sure what it means but I won't argue. 'Out of the mouths of babes' as they say.

      Insulting? Well, you have to admit that recently insults have been the mother's milk of this blog. Things have been a little better over the last few days but I am always a little late in changing. So I won't argue with that ether.

      Specious? Haven't any Idea what you are talking about and you weren't that forthcoming.

      What was specious about what I said?

      .

      Delete
    5. What was specious about what I said?

      "Trust Hassan Rouhani? Hell, that would be like saying trust Bibi Netanyahu."

      Delete
    6. .

      In his own words, Bibi has spelled out his own duplicity and his contempt for the US government and people.

      If you really believe the US can trust Bibi Netanyahu there isn't much point in carrying the conversation further.

      .

      Delete
    7. To compare the president of Iran to the prime minister of Israel is specious.


      "If you really believe the US can trust Bibi Netanyahu there isn't much point in carrying the conversation further"

      Compared to what?

      Obama? Yep…

      Hillary? Yep…

      Maxine Walters? Yep…

      Jeb Bush? Yep…

      Al Gore? Yep…

      I can go on...

      Delete
    8. .

      So what?

      The issue was trust. You were the one that brought that word into the conversation above.

      The Iranian deal has zero to do with trust. It merely rests on verification and national interests.


      "If you really believe the US can trust Bibi Netanyahu there isn't much point in carrying the conversation further"

      Compared to what?



      There is no 'compared to what'. The only comparison that was previously discussed was the comparison between Bibi and Rouhani.

      You also mentioned the word juvenile. If after everything that has been posted here over the past year, Bibi's own words included, you think any American should consider this man trustworthy, it is you that is being juvenile.

      .

      Delete
  4. .

    Yes, it's 'Shark Week'.

    Seems like forever but it's finally back.

    .

    ReplyDelete
    Replies
    1. .

      The Great Shark Week Cage Fight

      For nearly three decades, Silver Spring-based Discovery has dominated the world of sharks with its annual Shark Week, bringing in millions of viewers and scaring just as many beachgoers.

      But Nat Geo Wild, a joint venture between D.C.-based National Geographic and Fox, has leapt into shark-infested waters with SharkFest, its own week-long predatory extravaganza.

      This week marks the start of both shark events, and Nat Geo Wild, which reaches about half of U.S. households, definitely wants you to get the two confused -- according to all of its marketing material -- in hopes of stealing some viewers from Discovery.

      [Shark pulls man underwater off North Carolina’s Outer Banks, bites him all over]

      "We want you to confuse the two. And you will. And we don't care because it gets us ratings," says the bearded narrator of Nat Geo Wild's ad for SharkFest (which you need to watch) while Battle Hymn of the Republic plays in the background. "We've done it for years and we're gonna continue to do it...


      http://www.washingtonpost.com/blogs/wonkblog/wp/2015/07/07/discoverys-shark-week-has-forced-a-tv-feeding-frenzy/

      .

      Delete
  5. .

    Preliminary but the gun used in the SF shooting belonged to a federal agent.

    .

    ReplyDelete
    Replies
    1. And it was a semi-auto so it shoots Fast and Furious.

      Delete
  6. .

    The EU has given Greece 5 days to come up with another plan or else face bankruptcy.

    Meanwhile it is interesting to note that

    Germany Also Has Defaulted on Its External Debts -- Many Times

    That is likely why it is the economic power it is today, and...

    Perhaps it is not fair to compare the current situation in Greece to what Germany found itself in during the Weimar years and after the end of World War II: The economic and political context at work now is certainly very different. But it is hard to deny that the grand idea of the European Union — an idea that Germany is trying to protect — was created at least partly in response to such financial problems.

    And in Greece — a country that was owed money by Germany in 1953 — history still matters. Under the leadership of the current Syriza government, Greece has pushed for Germany to pay reparations for its conduct during World War II, a sum that could be as high as $340 billion by some estimates and includes estimates of the structural damage that Axis occupation did to Greece.


    .

    ReplyDelete
  7. Comparing Greece to Germany doesn't work any better than the Greeks do.

    ReplyDelete

  8. WASHINGTON - The United States and its allies conducted 31 air strikes against Islamic State in Iraq and Syria on Monday, the coalition leading the operations said in a statement released early Wednesday.

    In Syria, the strikes were focused near Tal Abyad, where seven bomber, fighter and drone attacks hit tactical units for the militant group and also destroyed vehicles and fighting positions, according to the Combined Joint Task Force statement. Out of the total 15 strikes in the country, there also were four near Al Hasakah and two near Aleppo, as well as strikes near Ar Raqqah and Kobani.

    Sixteen air strikes in Iraq were spread throughout the country, hitting targets near Al Asad, Al Huwayjah, Baji, Falluja, Kirkuk, Makhmur, Mosul, Sinjar and Tal Afar. Islamic State targets near Haditha, though, bore the brunt of the force in the country, with five strikes hitting tactical units and destroying vehicles, an armored personnel carrier and weaponry.

    More Daid, No Longer Walking

    ReplyDelete
    Replies
    1. At this rate, The United States will kill approximately one month's worth of recruits in about 57 months time.

      Delete
  9. It’s now clear, or should be clear, that the Greek program was doomed to failure without major debt relief; no matter how hard the Greeks tried, austerity would shrink GDP faster than it reduced debt relative to the baseline, so that the debt situation was bound to worsen even as the attempt to balance the budget imposed vast suffering.

    And there was no good, or even non-terrible, answer given Greece’s membership in the euro.

    But there’s a broader lesson from Greece that is relevant to all of us — and it’s not the usual one about mending our free-spending ways lest we become Greece, Greece I tell you. What we learn, instead, is that fiscal austerity plus hard money is a deeply toxic mix. The fiscal austerity depresses the economy, and pushes it toward deflation; if it’s accompanied by hard money (in Greece’s case the euro, but a fixed exchange rate, a gold standard, or any kind of obsessive fear of inflation would do the trick), the result is not just a depression and deflation, but quite likely a failure even to reduce the debt ratio.

    For comparison, look at everyone’s favorite example of successful austerity, Canada in the 1990s. Canada came in with gross debt of roughly 100 percent of GDP, roughly comparable to Greece on the eve of the financial crisis. It then proceeded to do a pretty big fiscal adjustment — 6 percent of GDP according to the IMF’s measure of the structural balance, which is about a third of what Greece has done but comparable to other European debtors. But unemployment fell steadily. What was Canada’s secret?

    ReplyDelete
    Replies
    1. The answer was, easy money and a large currency depreciation. These offset the drag from austerity, allowing growth to continue.

      So, how does this play into U.S. policy debates? Well, Republicans love to warn that America might turn into Greece any day now. But look at the policy mix that is now de facto GOP orthodoxy: sharp cuts in government spending (maybe offset by tax cuts for the rich, but these won’t provide much stimulus), combined with a monetary policy obsessed with fears of dollar “debasement”. That is, the conservative side of the US political spectrum, while holding up Greece as a cautionary tale, is actually demanding that we emulate the policy mix that turned Greek debt into a complete disaster.

      Krugman

      Delete
  10. .

    More Social Engineering by the Obama Administration

    CHICAGO -- When the Fair Housing Act was passed in 1968, it barred the outright racial discrimination that was then routine. It also required the government to go one step further — to actively dismantle segregation and foster integration in its place — a mandate that for decades has been largely forgotten, neglected and unenforced.

    Now, on Wednesday, the Obama administration will announce long-awaited rules designed to repair the law’s unfulfilled promise and promote the kind of racially integrated neighborhoods that have long eluded deeply segregated cities like Chicago and Baltimore. The new rules, a top demand of civil-rights groups, will require cities and towns all over the country to scrutinize their housing patterns for racial bias and to publicly report, every three to five years, the results. Communities will also have to set goals, which will be tracked over time, for how they will further reduce segregation.

    “This is the most serious effort that HUD has ever undertaken to do that,” says Julian Castro, the secretary of the department of Housing and Urban Development, who will announce the new rules in Chicago on Wednesday. “I believe that it’s historic.”

    Officials insist that they want to work with and not punish communities where segregation exists. But the new reports will make it harder to conceal when communities consistently flout the law. And in the most flagrant cases, HUD holds out the possibility of withholding a portion of the billions of dollars of federal funding it hands out each year.


    Count on 'goals' once more becoming 'de-facto' mandates. It's the way they roll.

    http://www.washingtonpost.com/blogs/wonkblog/wp/2015/07/08/obama-administration-to-unveil-major-new-rules-targeting-segregation-across-u-s/?hpid=z1

    .

    ReplyDelete
  11. .

    NYSE has been down for 15 minutes as of 11:50 am EST due to 'technical' issues.

    .

    ReplyDelete
  12. Summary of Key Findings

    According to new data derived from the monthly Current Population Survey (CPS), median annual household income in May 2015 was $55,192, about $371 or 0.7 percent higher than the April 2015 median of $54,821. The Sentier Household Income Index for May 2015 was 96.6 (January 2000 = 100).
    These findings come from a report issued today by Sentier Research, titled “Household Income Trends: May 2015,” which presents monthly trends in household income from January 2000 to May 2015.
    The income increase in May contributed to the solid improvement since the low point in our household income series that occurred in August 2011. Median annual household income in May 2015 ($55,192) was 3.2 percent higher than in May 2014 ($53,476), and 6.9 percent higher than in August 2011 ($51,639). The period since August 2011 has been marked by an uneven, but generally upward trend in the level of real median annual household income. Many of the month-to-month changes in median income during this period have not been statistically significant. However, the cumulative effect of the various month-to-month changes since August 2011 resulted in the income improvement noted above. (See Figure 1)
    According to Gordon Green of Sentier Research, “The increase in median annual household income in May added to the general upward trend in income since the low-point reached in August 2011. “We are now at a point where we have recovered almost all of the losses in median income that followed the end of the recession in June 2009. The median, however, remains lower than in December 2007, the beginning of the recession ($56,457).”

    Coming Back

    ReplyDelete
  13. Hoo, boy.

    Donald Trump leads the Republican field in North Carolina, according to PPP.

    Donald Trump - 16

    Jeb! - 12

    Walker - 12

    Huckabee - 11

    ReplyDelete
    Replies
    1. .

      If people are as pissed off as me, I can see why he is up there. I don't take him seriously but I love to hear him talk. If he makes it to the debates, that will be must see TV. I don't plan on missing it.

      Some of the stuff he says is really off the wall but then so is some of the stuff put out there by the media in trying to knock him down. I have seen stories by NBC and CBS using 'anonymous workers', supposedly undocumented workers who work on his construction sites complaining that he is being hypocritical. I watched Anderson Cooper interviewing him today. What a dick. Evidently there is a story out there about a lawsuit from 35 years ago that old Anderson wanted to talk about. Trump made mince meat of him. I was enjoying every minute of it.

      I also saw as much of Hillary's interview as I could take. If through some massive disruption in the cosmos, it came down to a choice between Trump and Hillary in 2016, I swear I would vote for Trump.

      .

      Delete
  14. .

    Despite Obama's lies the White House and Obama were fully aware of the central roll Jonathon Gruber played in not only designing key portions of Obamacare but also in selling the program to Congress and America. The numerous visits Gruber made to the White House, his meetings with Obama, the thousands of e-mails all point to that central roll. Yet, Obama said he could barely recall the man.

    Perhaps, not likely, but perhaps. However, he sure learned the man's tactics and he appears balls up for the stealth approach used in getting the ACA passed. He has used the tactic a number of times since. He has and still is using it with trade deals, the TAA, TPP, TPIP, and others. And now the Libs, the White House, the Dems, the left-wing media, and various advocate groups are once again gruberizing an issue, the AFFH.

    AFFH is easily one of President Obama’s most radical initiatives, on a par with Obamacare in its transformative potential. In effect, AFFH gives the federal government a lever to re-engineer nearly every American neighborhood — imposing a preferred racial and ethnic composition, densifying housing, transportation, and business development in suburb and city alike, and weakening or casting aside the authority of local governments over core responsibilities, from zoning to transportation to education. Not only the policy but the political implications are immense — at the presidential, congressional, state, and local levels. It is a scandal that the mainstream press has largely refused to report on AFFH until the day of its final release. The rule has been out in preliminary form for two years, and well before that the Obama administration’s transformative aims in urban/suburban policy were evident. Three years ago, when I wrote about Obama’s policy blueprint in Spreading the Wealth: How Obama Is Robbing the Suburbs to Pay for the Cities, the administration’s efforts to keep this issue under the radar were evident. Only last month, an admission of the stealth relied on by advocates to advance this initiative was caught on video.

    Read more at: http://www.nationalreview.com/corner/420896/massive-government-overreach-obamas-affh-rule-out-stanley-kurtz

    .

    ReplyDelete
    Replies
    1. .

      AFFH: Admission of Stealth Caught on Video

      The video in question is of a June 1, 2015 Brookings Institution event, “Place Opportunity and Social Mobility: What Now for Policy?” Brookings, by the way, is ground zero for the Obama administration’s anti-suburban “regionalist” policies. Brookings specialists help stock Obama’s HUD with pro-regionalist bureaucrats; and Brookings fellows help to build stealthily regionalist policies into Obama administration initiatives. Obama’s only serious public foray into urban-suburban issues during his first term came in an important 2009 Brookings Institution address that received virtually no press coverage.

      The June 1, 2015 Brookings event on “Place and Opportunity” was streamed on video by 30 officials at HUD and 9 officials from the Seattle Housing Authority, a national center of regionalist policies. The section of the video of particular interest comes in the form of a comment by event host, Brookings Fellow Richard Reeves, on remarks by panelist Margery Austin Turner. Turner, senior vice president for Program, Planning, and Management at the Urban Institute, is also a former deputy assistant secretary for research at HUD, and so (as Reeves points out) was addressing many of her former HUD colleagues online. What we’re seeing on video, then, is not an isolated opinion, but evidence of the state of mind of the core advocates and officials who shape the Obama administration’s housing policies.

      The key exchange comes between 1:21:08 and 1:23:59 on the video. In response to a question from Reeves about what “getting serious” about housing policy would mean, Turner cites AFFH, arguing that the rule could bring “incredibly important” changes to America. Slyly, she acknowledges that AFFH isn’t so much enforcing the original legal obligation to “affirmatively further fair housing,” as it is changing our understanding of what that obligation means. (In other words, AFFH is stretching a directive to prevent discrimination into a mandate for social engineering.) Turner then says that it would take decades for AFFH to fully transform society along the lines she desires. (I’d add that the rule won’t take nearly that long to gut local government in America.) What’s interesting is that when Turner finishes her discussion of AFFH by saying that the rule “sounds very obscure, but I think it could be hugely important,” Reeves breaks in and says: “Perhaps it’s important to keep [the AFFH rule] sounding obscure in order to get it through.” (In other words, to get the AFFH rule enacted before public opposition and congressional Republicans can block it, we’ve got to keep its existence and importance quiet.) At this point, the audience laughs sympathetically. Then Reeves adds: “Sometimes obscurity is the best political strategy, particularly in this area.”

      You don’t often see a direct admission by AFFH advocates that they are trying to fly under the political and media radar, but here it is—and at a Brookings event that Reeves himself emphasizes was being streamed by bureaucrats at HUD. Reeves clearly has no worries that his call for stealth might stir outrage from the 30 Obama administration officials listening in...


      Read more at: http://www.nationalreview.com/corner/419766/affh-admission-stealth-caught-video-stanley-kurtz

      .

      Delete
  15. Confederate flag coming down in South Carolina.

    ReplyDelete
    Replies
    1. In Chicago, 82 wounded 13 dead by gunfire

      In Detroit, less cops walking the beat than 100 years ago.

      In Baltimore, more shootings and deaths last month that any time in 40 years…

      And let's not gloss over the fact that 73% of of all African American babies that are born are born to single women. And that 36% of all african american conception end in abortion…

      African American unemployment is at record levels.

      But the Confederate flag is coming down…

      Delete
  16. Sick people getting healthcare,

    people marrying the ones they love,

    no troops dying in the Middle East,

    people smoking weed,

    the administration attacking housing segregation,

    the slavery flag coming down,

    unemployment falling,

    wages rising . . . . .

    Vote Trump.

    ReplyDelete
    Replies
    1. .

      I wish I was given the chance.

      Most of the rest are just the same 'ol same ol'

      There is no way I would vote for Hillary.

      There is no way I would vote for most of the current GOP candidates.

      .

      Delete
  17. QuirkWed Jul 08, 04:19:00 PM EDT
    So what?
    The issue was trust. You were the one that brought that word into the conversation above.
    The Iranian deal has zero to do with trust. It merely rests on verification and national interests.


    My original comment, which you obviously lacked the ability to read completely was:
    Trust, but verify. used to be the saying...

    Now it's "Trust, payoff and shut your eyes"

    Good luck with that..




    Now it's "Trust, payoff and shut your eyes"

    It's called sarcasm Quirk, ever hear of it?



    ReplyDelete
    Replies
    1. .

      Sometimes you have to work with what you are given.

      .

      Delete
  18. Now let's disassemble Quirk's Statement:

    QuirkTue Jul 07, 08:51:00 PM EDT
    .

    Trust, but verify. used to be the saying...

    You sound like a schoolgirl.


    Hardly, I repeated what a US president USED to say about the Soviets.




    Quirk: Trust? The US would be a fool to trust Iran. Just as Iran would be a fool to trust the US. You don't sign these agreements because you want to be friends. You do it for pragmatic reasons. We have little choice.

    If Iran actually wants a bomb rather than just the capability to make one they will get the bomb. They will get it despite current sanctions. They will get it despite future sanctions. They will get it whether Israel bombs their current facilities or whether the US bombs them. We may be able to set them back a few years but they will still get it. The only way to put off their efforts for a considerable length of time is to invade. Despite its military superiority, Israel can't do it. And the US won't do it. Likely, can't do it, not only because the American people would be against it but because most of the world would be against it including some pretty big players. No, rather any further action against Iran will simply guarantee they would go after the bomb and get it. And if they did get it under any of the scenarios mentioned above, when they got it we can assume they would be pissed.




    Once again General Quirk thinks like a child…


    The ONLY CHOICE?

    Hardly General Quirk….

    How about America impose sanctions? How about America, France, Germany or Israel give arms to Iranians seeking regime change?

    How about America (and Israel) flood the world with cheap oil and natural gas? Thus cutting Russia. Iran and OPEC's position right from under them?

    The only choice is to invade is bullcrap, is that why you were relieved of command? You lack of seeing a chess board and only seeing checkers?

    ReplyDelete
    Replies
    1. Quirk: Trust Hassan Rouhani? Hell, that would be like saying trust Bibi Netanyahu. Only a fool would do it.

      All we can do is get the best deal we can negotiate (I kinda doubt we have) and hope the Iranians put the end of sanctions and an opening to the West above any advantages they see from having a bomb.

      While other countries may view the situation differently, my concern is with the US. IMO, an agreement is in the best interest of the US. On the other hand, if the GOP or Israel manage to scuttle the deal I can only see things getting worse in the ME for US interests.

      A deal at all costs eh?

      A deal that removes ALL sanctions to IRan for nothing? Is a bad deal.

      A deal that funds Iran in it's drive to regional hegemony is a bad deal. Giving Iran 50-150 billion in cash is a BAD deal.

      How about No deal, America goes it alone and puts those sanctions back on and tells the world, make a choice, do business with America or do business with IRan.

      That's how the big boys play Quirk.

      It's amazing how cuckolded you are..

      Delete
    2. Food for thought…

      How did that north korea deal work out?

      Oh yeah, complete failure…



      Delete
    3. .

      The 'big boys'?

      You are always good for a laugh, WiO. You are defined by your nombrilisme israeli. The demands you and your bros would impose are a trip into lalaland. No country would agree to them. No country should have to agree to them. They are not designed to make a better deal, they are designed to punish Iran and guarantee there is no deal. You are a funny man.

      The following article is by Will Marshall of the Progressive Policy Institute. The guy has pushed for a more robust (some might say aggressive) US foreign policy and can hardly be called some kind of peacenik. While he obviously doesn't have my insight, he s still able to capture all of the points I made yesterday. Rather than repeat the points I made, I'll leave it to the blog to read the article.

      A nuclear deal with Iran is better than no deal

      o the real choice we may face this week is between a deal that puts real constraints on Iran's nuclear program, or no deal at all.

      No deal means Tehran will install more advanced centrifuges spinning out weapons-grade uranium. It means no international inspections of Iran's nuclear or military sites. And it could mean resumption of Tehran's original plans to produce plutonium at its Arak reactor, giving it a second path to the bomb.

      What's more, an unfettered Iranian nuclear program would likely induce Saudi Arabia and other Arab states, already unnerved by Iranian imperialism in the region, to launch their own nuclear programs. This would conjure up U.S. strategists' worst nightmare -- a nuclear arms race in the world's most unstable and terror-plagued region. It would raise the odds of a military strike on Iran's scattered nuclear facilities, possibly by the United States but more likely by Israel.

      If, on the other hand, a final deal hews to "parameters" negotiators have already agreed to, it would enhance U.S. security and reduce the risk of regional proliferation. These include steep reductions in the number of centrifuges installed, and no production of highly enriched uranium for at least 15 years; a redesign of the Arak reactor so it doesn't produce plutonium; and, regular international inspections of Iran's nuclear facilities and nuclear supply chain...


      The key point above is that while the Iranian nuclear deal might not be in the national interests of Israel or Saudi Arabia as defined by their current governments but it would be to the benefit of the US. Call it my nombrilisme americain but that is my main concern.

      .

      Delete
    4. The deal puts no limit on Iranian icbms

      This is an interest of the USA not of israel's

      Delete
  19. African American Unemployment is 9.5%.

    In April of 2010 it was 16.5%.

    Employment Situation - April 2010

    ReplyDelete
    Replies
    1. For the Math-Challenged Racists among us, that is an improvement of 57%.

      Delete
    2. Spin it byway you want…

      African American unemployment rates suck…


      http://prospect.org/article/crisis-black-unemployment-still-higher-pre-recession-levels

      Delete
    3. 57%?

      a bullshit number measuring another bullshit number…

      Delete
  20. So, I guess there's a country, somewhere, in which 9.5 is a larger number than 16.5, but I don't believe that country is located in North America.

    ReplyDelete
    Replies
    1. Oops, excuse moi, 9.5 is 57% of 16.5. We're actually looking at an 'improvement' of 42%.

      Delete
    2. Once again you spin.

      The real life situation for black americans suck.

      Do your math all you want however we both know that the numbers are cooked. The unemployment rate is not the same as it was. It's not calculated with the same numbers.

      The real issue?

      Why are blacks aborting themselves at such a high rate?

      Why is black on black violence an epidemic?

      Dont spout off about reports....

      Look at the facts and the reality...

      Inner city black youth is destroying it's self..

      All under 6 years of Obama..

      Delete
    3. I don't attach comments to your posts,

      Please, don't attach your idiot, racist, comments to my posts.

      Delete
  21. Since 1970, American Productivity has increased by over 150%, while Real Hourly Compensation has increased by 13%.

    Jeb Bush thinks the answer is Americans have to work more hours.

    ReplyDelete
  22. If Grexit happens, then what? As so often in recent years, the best hope for an answer comes from turning to history; even though exits from a currency union are rare, we do have cases that seem to offer reasonable parallels, notably Argentina’s abandonment of the convertibility law — basically a supposedly permanent one-peso-one-dollar rule — at the beginning of 2002.

    What Carmen Reinhart tells us is that we should expect very bad things. And maybe we should. But her data analysis here is, I think, misleading.

    The problem is a technical one, but with possibly large significance. Carmen looks at annual averages, and finds that in 2002 Argentine real GDP per capita was 8.2 percent lower than in 2001. This seems to suggest that the end of convertibility delivered a terrible blow to the economy.

    But as Mark Weisbrot has been saying for years, this gets the story fundamentally wrong. As you can see from the chart, Argentina’s economy was in free fall over the course of 2001 — before the dollar peg was abandoned — thanks in large part to banking collapse and public panic (sound familiar?). But the free fall ended quite soon after the peso was devalued. Yes, average annual GDP in 2002 was much lower than average annual GDP in 2001 — but this mainly reflected the plunge during 2001, before the devaluation. On a quarterly basis, GDP was rising by mid-2002, and the economy was growing rapidly by 2003.

    In other words, that big decline from 2001 to 2002 is mainly telling us about the effects of the pre-devaluation panic, not the effects of devaluation itself.

    The relevance to Greece seems obvious. Of course, it’s easy to think of reasons why Grexit might not stabilize the situation as quickly as peso devaluation did. But you can’t use Argentina as a reason to fear Grexit at this point, given that once again the financial panic has already happened.

    Once again, the Chart tell it all

    ReplyDelete
  23. .

    This reflects the same thinking liberal economists offered us in 2009.

    When new unemployment claims got down to 500,000 a month later in the year, they cited it as a significant 'improvement' from the 800,000 jobs lost at peak of the crisis. What they ignore is that the later numbers came from a significantly reduced base. Heck, f we would have continued losing jobs at the highest rates we would have eventually had no jobs at all, an absurdity. The same applies today when they cite improving numbers ignoring the low base they are coming from.

    We see the same issue in the dates that we use for our comparisons. You can 'prove' most things if you use the right starting point.

    Citing the numbers and the improvement is legitimate. Lying through omission is called lying with statistics.

    .

    ReplyDelete
  24. The US-led coalition battling the Islamic State (also known as ISIS or ISIL) has dramatically intensified its air war against the militant group with strikes pummeling the group's de-facto capital of Raqqa, Syria.

    Since Wednesday, the coalition has conducted aerial strikes against more than 70 ISIS targets. One airstrike was responsible for bombing 20 ISIS staging areas around Raqqa, according to Brett McGurk, the US deputy special presidential envoy for the Global Coalition to Counter ISIS.

    In addition to the strikes around Raqqa, the US-led coalition also destroyed ISIS fighting positions and tactical units in Tal Abyad, Kobani, Aleppo, and Al Bukamal in Syria, according to a press release from the coalition.

    The latter sites in Syria have been the location of fierce fighting between US-backed Kurdish YPG forces and ISIS. Since the US began providing aerial support to the Kurds, the YPG has steadily eaten away at ISIS territory in northern Syria. At the height of its push, the YPG advanced to within 30 miles of Raqqa.


    ReplyDelete
    Replies
    1. In addition to the strikes in Syria, the US-led coalition carried out 14 airstrikes against 11 targets in Iraq. The strikes in Iraq destroyed heavy machinery, tactical positions, bunkers, and staging areas across much of the north and the west of the country.

      "The coalition is committed to diminishing Daesh's military capacity," Brig. Gen. Kevin Killea, the chief of staff for the combined joint task force, said in a statement, using the Arabic acronym for ISIS. "Our disciplined targeting process and strike execution remain relentless in seeking out and prosecuting Daesh targets."

      The sudden ramp-up in airstrikes comes as President Barack Obama recently promised to escalate attacks against the militant group. The bombing runs against Raqqa were the most intense against ISIS since operations began last August, ABC managing editor Jon Williams said.

      "Indeed, we're intensifying our efforts against ISIL's base in Syria," Obama said Tuesday during remarks at the Pentagon. "Our airstrikes will continue to target the oil and gas facilities that fund so much of their operations. We're going after the ISIL leadership and infrastructure in Syria — the heart of ISIL that pumps funds and propaganda to people around the world."

      They ARE Going to Run Out of Virgins.

      Delete
  25. Admittedly, today's 9.5% black unemployment rate isn't quite as good as April, 2006's 9.4% black unemployment rate, BUT

    it's nowhere near the Worst (16.5%) that our Zionist says it is.

    April, 2006

    ReplyDelete
    Replies
    1. Once again the numbers of today are not collected as the numbers of yesterday.

      Delete

  26. Afghanistan's Top ISIS Leader Shahidullah Shahid Killed In US Drone Strike


    http://www.ibtimes.com/afghanistans-top-isis-leader-shahidullah-shahid-killed-us-drone-strike-2001469

    The leader of the Islamic State group in Afghanistan was killed by a U.S. drone strike Tuesday, local media report. The attack was first confirmed by Afghanistan’s National Directorate of Security through its Twitter account. At least five other ISIS members were killed in the same strike.

    Shahidullah Shahid, the nom de guerre of a former spokesman for the Pakistani Taliban who was sacked by the group after joining ISIS, was believed to be the leader of the militant group’s Khorasan branch. The name refers to a large region that spans historic eastern Persia and today includes parts of Iran, Afghanistan and Pakistan. He is the third top ISIS commander to be killed in Afghanistan this year, according to New York Daily News.

    ReplyDelete

  27. Meanwhile the nation that Robert "Draft Dodger" Peterson recommends for NATO membership ...

    Indian PM Hails Iran's Role in Regional Security, Anti-Terror Campaign
    July 09, 2015 - 17:52

    TEHRAN (Tasnim) – Indian Prime Minister Narendra Modi on Thursday highlighted the role Iran plays in the fight against terrorism, and urged for cooperation between the two countries to eradicate the evil phenomenon.

    Speaking in a meeting with Iranian President Hassan Rouhani in the Russian city of Ufa, Modi highlighted the role of Iran in identifying and eradicating the roots of terrorism in the Middle East and in establishing peace and security.

    "We should not let terrorism cast any doubts on Islam and Muslims in the world," Modi further said in the meeting.

    ReplyDelete
    Replies
    1. http://www.tasnimnews.com/english/Home/Single/794665

      Delete
    2. Robert "Draft Dodger" Peterson has sung the praises of Mr Modi, time and again ...

      "We should not let terrorism cast any doubts on Islam and Muslims in the world,"
      - Narendra Modi

      Delete

  28. German exporters eye lucrative deals in post-sanctions Iran

    http://in.reuters.com/article/2015/07/05/iran-nuclear-germany-business-idINL8N0ZK0GT20150705

    FRANKFURT/BERLIN, July 5 (Reuters) - Martin Herrenknecht, founder of a company in southern Germany that is a world leader in tunnel-boring equipment, has been carefully preparing for the day when Iran reopens for business.

    He recently visited Tehran, meeting officials in the energy ministry and sewage department. Before Western sanctions hit, Herrenknecht, which carries its 72-year-old founder's name, did 10 million to 15 million euros ($11 million-$17 million) of business a year in Iran.

    It has maintained an office there, anticipating a day when Iran reaches a nuclear deal with major powers that will put lucrative projects like a long-delayed expansion of the Tehran metro back on track.

    "I know what projects are coming and I'm ready to sign when the sanctions are lifted," Martin Herrenknecht told Reuters.

    ReplyDelete

  29. 'India-Russia-Iran transport corridor will boost trade with Central Asia'

    http://news.webindia123.com/news/Articles/Business/20150706/2636166.html



    The proposed International North South Transport Corridor expected to be discussed during Prime Minister Narendra Modi's ongoing five-nation tour to Central Asia will to give a major boost to India's trade with the region, industry chamber FICCI said on Monday.

    "The International North South Transport Corridor (INSTC), which may figure in the talks between the leaderships of the Central Asian countries and Indian officials, once fully operational, will address the issue of poor connectivity and high transport costs to a large extent," the Federation of Indian Chambers of Commerce and Industry said in a statement here.

    A high-powered FICCI delegation, representing sectors such as construction, pharmaceuticals, mining, banking, power transmission and IT, is accompanying the prime minister on his visit to Kazakhstan on July 7 and 8, it said.

    "Top Indian companies such as Essar Group, GMR, BHEL, NASSCOM, Punjab National Bank, Lupin, Punj Llyod and SUN Group are being represented in the business delegation," it added.


    Robert "Draft Dodger" Peterson wants these Indian supporters of both Russia and Iran in NATO ...
    He has no concern for US security interests

    ReplyDelete

  30. Joint Chiefs nominee: Russia greatest threat to U.S.


    http://www.cnn.com/2015/07/09/politics/joseph-dunford-russia-greatest-threat/index.html

    "Russia presents the greatest threat to our national security," Gen. Joseph Dunford told the Senate Armed Services committee during his confirmation hearing to be the next Chairman of the Joint Chiefs of Staff.

    ReplyDelete
    Replies

    1. Perhaps Robert "Draft Dodger" Peterson should just quit half-stepping and endorse Russia and Iran for NATO membership, too.

      Delete
    2. Lord, God, Rat, Deuce has him banned; don't call back the dead. :)

      Delete
    3. Please. Don’t even mention him. Focus on matters at hand.

      Delete
  31. Billionaire Donald Trump recently claimed that Mexican immigrants are rapists and criminals. But a new report has found that the opposite is true: Immigrants — both legal and unauthorized — are actually less likely to commit crime than native-born Americans.

    The report from the Immigration Policy Center, an advocacy group, draws from federal data and various empirical studies. The analysis isn't perfect, because it doesn't always differentiate between legal and unauthorized immigrants. But it should give Trump and others pause before they make eccentric claims that paint Latino Americans with a broad brush.

    "While lawmakers repeatedly justify their crackdown on immigrants as a means of fighting crime, the reality is that crime in the United States is not caused or even aggravated by immigrants, regardless of their legal status," the report concludes. "This is hardly surprising since immigrants come to the United States to pursue economic and educational opportunities not available in their home countries and to build better lives for themselves and their families. As a result, they have little to gain and much to lose by breaking the law."

    The report offers two major findings as evidence: Native-born Americans are more likely to be incarcerated than Central American immigrants, and recent increases in immigration occurred as crime actually fell in the US.

    1) Native-born Americans are much more likely to be incarcerated than immigrants




    Immigration Policy Center

    The Immigration Policy Center found that immigrants from Mexico, El Salvador, and Guatemala ages 18 to 39 and without a high school diploma — those who would be most prone to commit crime — are incarcerated at much lower rates than native-born Americans of the same age and education level. This suggests that immigrants — both unauthorized, most of whom come from Central America, and legal — are committing much less crime.

    The analysis found this has held up for decades. In 1980, 1990, 2000, and 2010, native-born Americans ages 18 to 39 were two to five times more likely to be in jail or prison than immigrants of the same age.

    In a review of the research, the Immigration Policy Center cited multiple studies that found immigrants aren't more prone to commit crime. For example, a 2013 study found that "immigrants to the US are less likely to engage in violent or nonviolent antisocial behaviors than native-born Americans. Notably, native-born Americans were approximately four times more likely to report violent behavior than Asian and African immigrants and three times more likely than immigrants from Latin America."

    The group also pointed to federal commissions from a century ago that studied the effects of previous immigration waves on crime. The Dillingham Commission in 1911 concluded, "No satisfactory evidence has yet been produced to show that immigration has resulted in an increase in crime disproportionate to the increase in adult population. Such comparable statistics of crime and population as it has been possible to obtain indicate that immigrants are less prone to commit crime than are native Americans."

    2) Since the 1990s, more unauthorized immigrants came to the US — and crime rates dropped



    ReplyDelete
    Replies
    1. As the number of immigrants — unauthorized and otherwise — increased in the US, crime fell precipitously across the country. And major immigrant "gateways" — such as El Paso, San Antonio, San Diego, and Austin — have seen big crime drops along with the rest of the country, according to the Immigration Policy Center report.

      Now, immigration isn't necessarily the cause of the US crime drop — criminologists point to many, many reasons  for the decline, and some are still being studied and debated to this day.

      But some criminologists believe immigration helped. John Roman, a senior fellow at the Urban Institute's Justice Policy Center, previously told me  that . . . .

      Vox

      Delete
  32. The World's 8th Largest Economy obtained Over 25% of its electricity from Renewables, yesterday.

    CaISO

    ReplyDelete
  33. .

    The deal puts no limit on Iranian icbms

    This is an interest of the USA not of israel's


    Exactly. You make my point for me. It is another one of Bibi's excuses trying to prevent any treaty with Iran.

    As regards the US, I would suspect Iran is way down on our worry list. First, Iran knows a nuclear attack on the US would result in their country being turned into a glass skating rink. Second, why would Iran feel the need to attack the US? What good would it do them? The US isn't the only country in the world with sanctions on them. The sanctions from the EU and others affects them more than anything the US is doing. Third, they may be developing ICBM's but they don't have them operational yet. By that score, the US should be more concerned with Israel and their Jericho III's.

    Finally, ICBM's are appropriately handled in Strategic Arms Treaties, SALT et al, not in the NPT. The NPT exists and Iran is proposing nothing that isn't already approved under the NPT. No, talk of ICBM's, things like committing not to aid Hezbollah, anything having to do with Iran/Israeli relations, none of this belongs in a nuclear agreement with Iran. I won't even call it the GOP/neocon/Israeli wet dream. They know Iran would never agree to any one of them. They are merely poison pills to kill the deal.

    .

    ReplyDelete
  34. .

    Roman acknowledged that it's difficult to study the direct effects of immigration and gentrification — making it hard to know how much, if any, of an impact immigrants may have.

    I love this. An entire article pumping up how great immigration is at reducing crime in the US and then at the very bottom the admission that what had gone before could very well be bullshit. We saw the same thing with lower health care costs and Obamacare.

    But why let lack of demonstrable facts ruin a good story?

    .

    ReplyDelete
  35. WASHINGTON -- A bill to fund the Department of the Interior stalled Thursday after Republicans tried to add an amendment that would protect the Confederate flag in national cemeteries.

    The measure had immediately sparked Democratic ire Wednesday night when it was added unexpectedly by Rep. Ken Calvert (R-Calif.). A swarm of lawmakers took to the House floor in the morning to condemn the move.

    "Where did you stand when you had a chance to stand for righteousness?" asked Rep. Al Green (D-Texas), warning that in the future people will look back and assess where lawmakers stood. "I stand against this symbol. I stand for the American flag. I stand for justice."





    "This amendment is a symbol of hate and anyone who supports it being in a place of honor is an insult to anyone who has experienced racism in their lives or believes in the American founding principles," said Rep. David Cicilline (D-R.I.). "It's time to relegate this symbol of hate to the dustbin of history. Take it down."

    The outcry prompted House Speaker John Boehner to declare that the debate on the underlying spending bill would be put into "abeyance," although he did not say for how long.

    Asked why the amendment was added to the bill -- after the House had voted on other provisions to remove the Confederate emblem in parks -- Boehner also was not clear.

    "Our members rightly tried to address their concerns in a way yesterday that was consistent with how the Obama administration has handled this issue. I frankly support the goal of trying to work with all the parties to address their concerns," he told reporters, before making it clear that he himself opposes flying that symbol of hatred at federal cemeteries.

    "Listen, we all witnessed the people of Charleston and the people of South Carolina come together in a very respectful way to deal with frankly what was a very horrific crime and a very difficult issue with the Confederate flag," Boehner said. "I actually think it's time for some adults in here in the Congress to sit down and have a conversation about how to address this issue. I do not want this to become some political football."

    ReplyDelete
    Replies
    1. He added that he expected the discussion would occur "in coming days."

      But Calvert, who chairs the House Appropriations subcommittee with jurisdiction over the Interior Department, said that he had offered the amendment because leaders brought it to him at the "request of some southern Members of the Republican Caucus."

      "The Leadership amendment would have codified existing National Park Service policy set by the Obama administration," Calvert said in a statement. "Those Obama administration policies prohibit the sale and display of the Confederate flag on National Park Service properties, except when displayed in a historical or educational context. To be clear, I wholeheartedly support the Park Service's prohibitions regarding the Confederate flag and the amendment did nothing to change these prohibitions," he said.

      "Looking back, I regret not conferring with my colleagues on the other side of the aisle, especially my Ranking Member Betty McCollum, prior to offering the Leadership's amendment and fully explaining its intent given the strong feelings Members of the House feel regarding this important and sensitive issue," Calvert added.

      Rep. McCollum (D-Minn.) had been the first to slam the amendment.

      While the fate of the broader bill remains uncertain, Rep. James Clyburn (D-S.C.) took to the floor later on Thursday to protest the flag amendment and to demand a vote to summarily adjourn the House.

      It failed, attracting only a handful of supporters, but the top Democrat on the House Appropriations Committee, Rep. Nita Lowey (N.Y.), said that Boehner got what he deserved.

      "It is shocking that it took a ham-fisted defense of the Confederate battle flag by the most extreme voices in the Republican conference to make Republican leadership realize this Interior bill was a losing proposition," said Lowey, referring as well to many other provisions that Democrats oppose, including deep cuts to the Environmental Protection Agency.

      “I hope the Committee and Republican leadership think long and hard about how they got themselves into this mess, and will begin working constructively to repair the damage," Lowey added. “It should be crystal clear to everyone at this point that it is impossible to enact Appropriations bills at inadequate levels mandated by the Republican budget resolution, but adding damaging and ideological riders like Chairman Calvert’s Confederate battle flag amendment in order to attract the more extreme Republicans makes the impossible even harder to accomplish.”

      House Minority Leader Nancy Pelosi (D-Calif.) drove the point home further, seeking a vote on a resolution to remove from the Capitol "any state flag containing any portion of the confederate battle flag other than a flag displayed by a member of the House." Amid a flurry of shouting and jeers from both sides of the aisle, Republican leaders moved to refer the measure to a committee.

      Kate Sheppard and Jennifer Bendery contributed reporting

      Slavery Flag

      Delete
  36. Donald Trump has been inching upward in the polls lately, and now we finally have one from The Economist and YouGov showing him in a clear first place:

    First, Baby

    ReplyDelete
    Replies
    1. Numero Uno. The Big Cahuna. De Donald.

      Delete
    2. I remember thinking how bad things could be if the buffoon Rob Ford was elected mayor of Toronto and things were worse when he was. I have the same feeling about Trump if, god forbid, he should win the POTUS prize.

      Delete
    3. .

      People are tired of the same old talking points being offered up by every candidate, all PR approved, all consultant scripted, all speaking in generalities, all saying nothing. And when they do say something that they really mean ala Bush's comments on productivity and longer work hours, they have to come back in a few hours and deny what they said was what they meant.

      Someone like Trump comes along and its refreshing. May not last too long but enjoy it while you can.

      .

      Delete
    4. Refreshing, like the smell of napalm in the morning?

      Delete
    5. .

      I like it.

      Evidently, there are others that like it too.

      .

      Delete
    6. .

      If for nothing else, it is great having someone in the race that has no compunctions about telling the other players in the race exactly what they are.

      .

      Delete
    7. .

      I thought this run was just a PR stunt like the other times Trump has run. Now, I'm not so sure. If it is, he is losing a heck of a lot of money on his way to getting any kind of a return. And unlike the other dolts in the race, when he says something controversial, he stands behind it and defends it.

      I love to see him in his interviews with the news media, especially CNN. Everyone there considers him a doofus and it shows in the interviews and in the in-studio commentary afterwards. Anderson Cooper tried to pin the hypocrite tag on him because there were illegal workers working for some sub-contractor on a trump hotel 35 years ago. Trump only laughed at him and told him if that's all he's got he should be ashamed of himself. Cooper continued but he merely made himself look more foolish.

      .

      Delete
  37. Yo, Deuce, the Confederate flag debate is just now getting interesting. What say you?

    ;-)

    ReplyDelete
  38. George Bush charges his "fellow adventurers" $100,000.00 Big Ones for appearance at their convention.

    ReplyDelete
    Replies
    1. Hey, he's got expenses dontcha know? Speech writers, travel, food, hotels...

      ...the world according to dubya - foolosophy!

      Delete
    2. .

      The price of paints and canvas keeps climbing.

      .

      Delete
    3. .

      Former President George W. Bush charged $100,000 to speak at a charity fundraiser for U.S. military veterans severely wounded in Iraq and Afghanistan, and former First Lady Laura Bush collected $50,000 to appear a year earlier, officials of the Texas-based Helping a Hero charity confirmed to ABC News.

      The former President was also provided with a private jet to travel to Houston at a cost of $20,000, the officials said.

      The charity, which helps to provide specially-adapted homes for veterans who lost limbs and suffered other severe injuries in “the war on terror in Iraq and Afghanistan,” said the total $170,000 expenditure was justified because the former President and First Lady offered discounted fees and helped raise record amounts in contributions at galas held in 2011 and 2012.

      “It was great because he reduced his normal fee of $250,000 down to $100,000,” said Meredith Iler, the former chairman of the charity.

      However, a recent report by Politico said the former President’s fees typically ranged between $100,000 and $175,000 during those years.

      One of the wounded vets who served on the charity’s board told ABC News he was outraged that his former commander in chief would charge any fee to speak on behalf of men and women he ordered into harm's way.

      “For him to be paid to raise money for veterans that were wounded in combat under his orders, I don’t think that’s right,” said former Marine Eddie Wright, who lost both hands in a rocket attack in Fallujah, Iraq in 2004.


      http://news.yahoo.com/help-us-veterans-charity-george-w-bush-charged-225504539.html;_ylt=A0LEVibmJ59VSPgAsNYnnIlQ;_ylu=X3oDMTE0aW43YmMxBGNvbG8DYmYxBHBvcwMyBHZ0aWQDRkZYVUkzN18xBHNlYwNzcg--

      More proof of the old saying, 'They are all dicks'.

      .

      Delete
    4. Former President George W. Bush charged $100,000 to speak at a charity fundraiser for U.S. military veterans severely wounded in Iraq and Afghanistan, and former First Lady Laura Bush collected $50,000 to appear a year earlier, officials of the Texas-based Helping a Hero charity confirmed to ABC News.

      The former President was also provided with a private jet to travel to Houston at a cost of $20,000, the officials said.

      Delete
    5. Oops, I went redundant. Oh, well.

      One Hundred and Seventy Big'uns.

      I like Bush's end of the "adventure" better than the one of the guys with the legs and arms blown off.

      Delete
  39. (IraqiNews.com) Nineveh – local sources in the province of Nineveh announced that ISIS suffers from a severe internal crisis which led to clashes that left 45 dead and wounded.

    According to sources, “a struggle and fierce fighting took place between ISIS militants in some areas in Mosul,” pointing out that, “the fight resulted in the killing of 15 elements and injuring more than 30 others.” Indicating that, “ISIS elements have been divided into several factions in the city of Mosul.”

    Do They Still Get Their Virgins?

    ReplyDelete
  40. Have we forgotten that De Donald was, in his last iteration, Pro-Choice, and Pro-Single Payer Healthcare for All?

    ReplyDelete
    Replies
    1. .

      Has he changed his positions?

      .

      Delete

    2. Trump proposes massive one-time tax on the rich

      By Phil Hirschkorn/CNN



      November 9, 1999
      Web posted at: 6:24 p.m. EST (2324 GMT)


      NEW YORK (CNN) -- Billionaire businessman Donald Trump has a plan to pay off the national debt, grant a middle class a tax cut, and keep Social Security afloat: tax rich people like himself.

      Trump, a prospective candidate for the Reform Party presidential nomination, is proposing a one-time "net worth tax" on individuals and trusts worth $10 million or more.

      By Trump's calculations, his proposed 14.25 percent levy on such net worth would raise $5.7 trillion and wipe out the debt in one full swoop.

      The U.S. national debt decreased by $9.7 billion in September but remains at $5.66 trillion, according to the latest U.S. Treasury figures.

      The net worth tax is the cornerstone of Trump's economic plan released Tuesday morning.

      "No one has put forward a plan to make this country entirely debt free as we enter the next millenium," Trump said in a written statement.

      "The plan I am proposing today does not involve smoke and mirrors, phony numbers, financial gimmicks, or the usual economic chicanery you usually find in Disneyland-on-the-Potomac," Trump said.

      Delete
    3. Trump would exempt the value of an individual's principal home from the net worth total.

      "By my calculations, 1 percent of Americans, who control 90 percent of the wealth in this country, would be affected by my plan," Trump said.

      "The other 99 percent of the people would get deep reductions in their federal income taxes," he said.

      Eliminating the national debt would save the federal government $200 billion a year in interest payments, Trump said. He proposes to earmark half the savings for middle class tax cuts, and the other half for Social Security.

      Trump said depositing $100 billion annually in the Social Security trust fund would generate $3 trillion "over the next 30-years, when the trust fund is scheduled to go broke" and instead keep the fund "solvent through the next century."

      The tax also would lead to the repeal the current federal inheritance tax "which really hurts farmers and small businessman and women more than anything else," Trump said.

      Trump, whose own net worth is an estimated $5 billion, says the wealthy would not suffer if his economic plan were enacted.

      "Personally this plan would cost me hundreds of millions of dollars, but in all honesty, it's worth it," Trump said.

      Trump predicts his debt elimination combined with his tax cuts would trigger a 35 to 40 percent boost in economic activity, with more business start-ups, more jobs, and more prosperity.

      "It is a win-win for the American people, an idea no conventional politician would have the guts to put forward," Trump said.

      Last month, Trump formed a committee to explore seeking the presidential nomination of the Reform Party, which will automatically be on the ballot in 21 states next year.

      Delete