If Anybody Is Making Common Cause with Radicals in Iran, Wouldn't It Be Obama?

President Obama saying that Iranians “are making common cause with the Republican caucus” is twisted logic.  Obama is making common cause with the radical Islamic terrorists who he doesn’t admit exist.

David Lawrence has a piece on The Twisted Logic of Liberals in Eagle Rising website.

Being liberal is twisted logic.  It is seeking short term hedonistic satisfaction instead of patiently chasing long term results.

 … Obama’s spending millions on vacations and trillions on failed projects while pretending that he is a hero of the middle class is twisted logic with a dash of gourmet hypocrisy.

Obama having a distaste for American exceptionalism is twisted logic. He lives exceptionally well.  He has private chefs while he spits us out like fast food.  He turned self-reliance into food stamps.

Allowing Iran to get its hands on one hundred and fifty billion dollars and opening its path to a nuke is twisted logic. It’s arming our enemy.  It is Chamberlain giving weapons to the Nazis.

"Dare we now keep the Swedish flag on our walls without being racist?"

  … in the Swedish society … more and more Swedes are afraid to display their own flag

While Americans are (rightly) predicting that a ban against the Confederate flag will eventually lead to a campaign on the Stars and Stripes, Front Page's Nima Gholam Ali Pour points out that the war has already started in Scandinavia (thanks to Ben Duffy).

In … some 14-year-old boys in a school in Malmö wanted to pay tribute to the Swedish national soccer team by having shirts with the Swedish flag on the school photo. The headmaster forbade the students who wanted shirts with the Swedish flag from being on the school photo. The headmaster did not want that it would be perceived as that there is racism in the school.[3]

Ahead of Sweden's national day, June 6, 2014, which is also celebrated as the official flag day, the extreme left organization the “365 movement”[4], called on the people to engage in a "flag hunt," which meant that people would gather Swedish flags on the national day, burn them and take pictures.[5] [6] [7] The most flags and the greatest fire would be rewarded by the 365 movement.[8] According to the 365 movement the Swedish flag was "the ultimate symbol of the nation state, the racist structure that puts up boundaries between people".[9] In Malmö, the 365 movement staged a flag burning on national day evening where a hundred people attended.[10]


In Sweden, the message of an extreme left organization is usually not isolated. Their call to burn the flags was spread to politicians like Foujan Rouzbeh, parliamentary candidate for the Feminist Initiative, a party that has a seat in the European Parliament. Rouzbeh wrote on Twitter on national day in 2014: 

"To desecrate the flag tomorrow is to say that enough is enough now. Tear all the barriers, smash all the walls. Down with the nation-state! Long live us"[11] [12]

A letter to the editor of the Swedish union newspaper "Kollega" from 2015 asks: "Dare we now keep the Swedish flag on our walls without being racist?"[13] This is a question that more and more Swedes ask today because one incident after another shows that the Swedish flag is being challenged by sectors of the Swedish society. It is a legitimate question to ask because putting the Swedish flag on the balcony of your residence has in establishment and media circles become a symbol of xenophobia.[14]

"Long live us"!

As I write in The Era of the Drama Queens (Every Crisis Is a Triumph ), that, in a nutshell, is what leftist "opinions" and "talking points" boil down to…

Every time some leftist gets caught on tape saying what leftists really believe, they resort to the same defensive strategy—claiming to have been taken “out of context”

As the Center for Medical Progress continues its drip-drip-drip release of undercover videos that incriminate Planned Parenthood, The New York Times has pronounced the videos to be cruel tricks perpetrated by opponents of “women’s reproductive rights.”

writes B.A. Duffy.

The editorial board of The New York Times is not amused. They complain that the video was “edited” to the point of taking quotes out of context.

Wrong. Nothing was taken out of context. Prominent officials at Planned Parenthood really did haggle over prices, joke about buying a Lamborghini, and identify the organs of a dead child in a petri dish. They talked about how to alter the abortion procedure for the best harvest and how to maximize profits through the piecemeal sale of parts. One video even showed an official admitting that some children were delivered alive before an abortionist could get to the “patients,” and were therefore human beings even under our demented laws.

Nor were the videos “edited.” They were excerpted of course, much the same way ESPN extracts the highlights of a football game in order to summarize the big plays. That does not mean that the highlight reel is somehow illegitimate, as if it has something to hide.
 … All of this wailing and gnashing of teeth is getting tiresome. Every time some leftist gets caught on tape saying what leftists really believe, they resort to the same defensive strategy—claiming to have been taken “out of context,” and alleging that undercover videos are somehow deceitful. They try to portray themselves as victims and the media are glad to assist them. Undercover videos are dirty pool!

No, actually they’re pretty much the greatest thing since sliced bread. No one should apologize for exposing lying dirtbags wherever they may be found. Can’t we all agree on that? I think most people would—until they discover that it’s their own lies, or the lies of a confidant that are being exposed to sunlight. They can think of a hundred reasons why their lies shouldn’t be compared to someone else’s, but the simplest explanation remains the best—that it’s their lies.
 
I don’t mean to imply that lying is restricted to those on the political Left, but leftists do more of it because they’ve got more to hide, and are thus much more practiced. Don’t believe what they say when they’re answering reporters’ questions with poll-tested talking points. Listen to what they say when they think no one else is listening. That’s when the truth comes out.

 … Hidden cameras are, of course, fair game when they catch other people—truly bad people—in their own malfeasance. The New York Times won’t form a defensive perimeter around those people, and they won’t mimic their press releases, a service they gladly provide to Planned Parenthood. For example, when Texaco executives were caught on tape in 1996 making racist remarks about blacks, The New York Times didn’t make the preposterous claim that their words had been taken out of context or that the recording was highly edited. In fact, the Times’ reaction to the Texaco scandal was to publish an editorial supporting affirmative action in perpetuity.

Nor did The New York Times feel compelled to protect meat producers from animal rights activists and their hidden cameras. … An industry that abuses and slaughters livestock gets very different media treatment than an industry that abuses and slaughters unborn children.

 Dare I say that the Times is now in the news suppression business? What they’re doing can’t properly be called journalism. As the English novelist George Orwell once said, “Journalism is printing what someone else does not want printed. Everything else is just public relations.”

 … The institutional media can truly turn on a dime, and without the least bit of shame, from praising undercover exposés to excoriating them.

Conservatives Discuss Republican Debates on French TV

On Thursday, August 6, two conservatives in Paris were interviewed about the Republican debates by Olivier Galzi's summer stand-in, Romain Desarbres, on iTélé's Grand Décryptage, including the outstanding performance of Donald Trump (the US election sequence starts around 08:18).

  … l'émission s'intéresse au premier débat de la campagne présidentielle américaine qui se déroule ce jeudi soir. Pour en débattre, Ellen WASYLINA, expert de la Politique Américaine, et Erik SVANE, membre des Républicains de France, sont invités sur le plateau.

Back in 2009, Vaclav Havel Predicted the (Downward) Path of Obama's Foreign Policy

From the archives: back in October 2009, Václav Havel predicted the path of the Apologizer-in-Chief's foreign policy (“It is only a minor compromise,” Havel says of Obama's snub of the Dalai Lama; “But with these minor compromises start the big and dangerous problems"):

Vaclav Havel had a question as he opened a meeting with the New York Times' Alison Smale.

Was it true that President Obama had refused to meet the Dalai Lama in Washington?

Mr. Havel is a fan of the Dalai Lama, who was among the first visitors to Prague’s storied castle after Mr. Havel moved in there as president, the final act in the swift, smooth revolution of 1989. A picture of the Dalai Lama is displayed prominently in Mr. Havel’s current office in central Prague.
Told that Mr. Obama had made clear he would receive the Dalai Lama after his first presidential visit to China in November, Mr. Havel reached out to touch a magnificent glass dish, inscribed with the preamble to the United States Constitution — a gift from Mr. Obama, who visited in April.
“It is only a minor compromise,” Mr. Havel said of the nonreception of the Tibetan leader. “But exactly with these minor compromises start the big and dangerous ones, the real problems."

One letter to the editor noted that the Nobel Prize winner (i.e., the Tibetan leader) snubbed by the Nobel Prize winner (i.e., the Apologizer-in-Chief) is nothing less than a modern-day Gandhi and that

The American president would do well to heed Mr. Havel’s warning that coddling of rights-abusing nations is a “road to hell.”

(Incidentally, at least four paragraphs of the International Herald Tribune version were omitted in the online version of Smale's Václav Havel report, including the final para with the "road to hell" quote.) Even Maureen Dowd has dropped her usual scorn and irony to say that

The tyro American president got the Nobel for the mere anticipation that he would provide bold moral leadership for the world at the very moment he was caving to Chinese dictators. Awkward.

Mistral Warship Sale Sunk, France to Refund Russia

France says it has reached an agreement with Russia to cancel the contract for the sale of two French warships

reports the Associated Press.

France will fully refund Russia for the amount the country has already paid, the French president's office said Wednesday in a statement, without giving the figure.

The delivery of a Mistral-class warship to Russia was suspended last year over the Ukrainian crisis. A second French-built warship which was part of the deal was due to be delivered to Russia later this year.

The 1.2 billion euros ($1.3 billion) deal was supposed to be the biggest arms sale ever by a NATO country to Russia.

The Mistral-class vessels can carry 700 troops, 16 helicopter gunships and up to 50 armored vehicles.

It is an issue that No Pasarán has been diligently covering since 2010.

Related: France Seeking New Buyers for Mistral Warships

"These are good ships," [the French defense minister] told RTL radio, "ships that can serve multiple purposes," from force projection and command to acting as floating hospitals.

Jean-Yves Drian … said a number of unspecified countries have "made their interest known" in the boats, which are similar to the U.S. Navy's San Antonio class of amphibious transport dock ships.

 … Whoever finally ends up with Mistrals will need to repaint them to cover up the Russian navy names and markings they now bear.