Well, there’s always Pluto, about which the science is not settled.
From 2010: Obama’s irreversible damage
[NOTE: I first published this in March of 2010, over five years ago, in response to the question, “Has Obama does any irreversible damage so far?”
I think it’s time to repeat it.]
I believe the answer is “yes.”
But the reason I say this may surprise you. It’s not any one action or decision, or even several. It’s not even whether health care reform, if passed, can be reversed. It’s not the terrible precedent set by using reconciliation for a bill that is unpopular, not a budget or deficit measure, and has no bipartisan support. It’s not even Obama’s foreign policy, that insults our allies and emboldens dictators and fails to scare Iran in the least, although all of the above matter very much and they are all very bad.
I think the worst damage Obama has done is that, until now, America has always been a solid and somewhat predictable commodity, both domestically and internationally. There have been many fluctuations, of course. Presidents came and presidents went. Some were Republicans and some Democrats, some conservative and some liberal. But there remained a certain commonality and dependability that Americans and the rest of the world—our allies and our enemies—could depend on.
Allies would remain allies, and when the chips were down we would defend them. Enemies would remain enemies, even if we sometimes got closer to them and sometimes backed away from contact. We would get into debt, but not too much. Our economy was solid. And so on and so forth. But Obama has become a loose cannon, and American is suddenly not the rock it used to be. And I wonder if we ever again will be regarded in the same way.
That was where the post ended in 2010. The only thing I would amend is that the notion that “our economy was solid” was threatened during the 30s by the Great Depression, but we recovered and the Depression was seen as an anomaly and not as a purely American phenomenon by any means.
However, I would add that I don’t wonder any more. I’m relatively certain that will be considered undependable long into the future, and that the world will reflect that instability. Right now the strongest are jockeying for position, and does anyone on earth believe that the end result will be a safer, better world?
Wisconsin Supreme Court rules John Doe investigations must cease
The Wisconsin Supreme Court has ruled that the John Doe investigations, in which Democratic district attorneys used a vague law to go on an epic fishing expedition to intimidate and threaten Republican groups in their state, must end.
It’s one of those rulings that all Americans ought to applaud, because it preserves our liberty for at least another day, at least in Wisconsin. That’s not a partisan issue, or it shouldn’t be. But of course the reactions to the ruling break down along partisan lines, although most Americans probably have never heard of it and haven’t a clue about the significance of the threat that was just averted in Wisconsin.
And just to make myself clear, I don’t mean the threat to the Scott Walker campaign. I mean the threat to liberty.
Why have most Americans not heard of this case? Well, it’s not a sexy issue, like Caitlyn Jenner’s transformation. And I don’t think it’s being covered all that heavily in the MSM. When it is covered, you get something like today’s NY Times article on the subject, which is worth studying because it’s written in such a clever manner. You could read the entire thing from beginning to end without realizing what the prosecutors actually did in the investigations, or why it was so dangerous. To the Times, this was just a case in which conservative justices decided to protect Scott Walker—or, they seem to want their readers to think that.
You can read their article yourself if you still have access to the Times. The headline is written to remind the reader that Scott Walker was somehow implicated in the investigation, “Scott Walker 2012 Campaign Inquiry Ended by Wisconsin Court,” although by most accounts he actually was not. These are the first two paragraphs:
The Wisconsin Supreme Court on Thursday ruled that a criminal investigation into allegations of coordination between conservative groups and Gov. Scott Walker’s 2012 campaign cannot continue.
The decision of the court, which was divided, ends the specter of a criminal investigation as Mr. Walker pursues the Republican nomination for president. Mr. Walker, who has won three elections for governor over the last five years including a recall challenge in 2012, officially announced his bid on Monday.
The article quotes the decision briefly (just saying that the investigation is closed because the “special prosecutor’s legal theory is unsupported in either reason or law”) but leaves out anything that would actually give the reader an idea of what happened and why. The article goes on to describe the accusations against the Walker supporters, rather than what the accusers themselves had done to the John Doe targets of the investigation—although the latter is central to the lawsuit and the ruling.
In fact, amazingly enough, the words “John Doe” are mentioned only briefly in the fairly lengthy article, and the powers given by the John Doe statute in Wisconsin are never explained, except to say that the act requires secrecy. The investigation is alluded to in extremely vague terms with no details at all, but the charges against the John Doe targets are detailed, and things like this are aired: “legal experts say they suspect that the court’s four conservatives have been asked to step aside because some of the same conservative groups involved in the case spent money in support of some of the justices’ own elections.” A reader could read the entire piece without having a clue what happened here, or why the investigations were so offensive and outrageous, or that this was a case involving issues of liberty and freedom of speech.
So let’s leave the Times behind and turn to the court ruling. You can find good summaries and discussions at Hot Air and Legal Insurrection.
This is what the court actually said:
The special prosecutor has disregarded the vital principle that in our nation and our state political speech is a fundamental right and is afforded the highest level of protection. The special prosecutor’s theories, rather than “assur[ing] [the] unfettered interchange of ideas for the bringing about of political and social changes desired by the people,” Roth, 354 U.S. at 484, instead would assure that such political speech will be investigated with paramilitary-style home invasions conducted in the pre-dawn hours and then prosecuted and punished. In short, the special prosecutor completely ignores the command that, when seeking to regulate issue advocacy groups, such regulation must be done with “narrow specificity.” Barland II, 751 F.3d at 811 (quotations omitted).
A Times reader would have no idea what the court was talking about, if he/she did ever happen to come across those words, words that the Times did not feel the need to print or even allude to: “paramilitary-style home invasions conducted in the pre-dawn hours.” And then there’s also this from the court ruling:
It is utterly clear that the special prosecutor has employed theories of law that do not exist in order to investigate citizens who were wholly innocent of any wrongdoing. In other words, the special prosecutor was the instigator of a “perfect storm” of wrongs that was visited upon the innocent Unnamed Movants and those who dared to associate with them. It is fortunate, indeed, for every other citizen of this great State who is interested in the protection of fundamental liberties that the special prosecutor chose as his targets innocent citizens who had both the will and the means to fight the unlimited resources of an unjust prosecution. Further, these brave individuals played a crucial role in presenting this court with an opportunity to re-endorse its commitment to upholding the fundamental right of each and every citizen to engage in lawful political activity and to do so free from the fear of the tyrannical retribution of arbitrary or capricious governmental prosecution. Let one point be clear: our conclusion today ends this unconstitutional John Doe investigation.
Fortunately.
[NOTE: If the Wisconsin Supreme Court had not had a majority of conservatives on the bench, it is virtually certain that the result would have been the opposite. And remember that Supreme Court justices in Wisconsin are elected. I find that interesting, because until recently Wisconsin has tended to be a blue state.]
Obama’s press conference: takes one to know one
You can watch it for me. I’m not into that much self-punishment.
William Jacobson reports on it at Legal Insurrection. Obama is riding high, demonstrating most of his now-familiar techniques: impugning the motives of the opposition, saying they spread misinformation about the deal, scolding (“that’s nonsense, you should know better”) reporters who ask embarrassing question like why he seemed okay with not asking Iran to release their American prisoners, and claiming that his opponents (that’s Republicans, not Iranians) didn’t offer any alternatives to the deal.
Here’s more:
When asked if support for the deal by Middle East dictators””and opposition by the majority of Congress and Benjamin Netanyahu””gave him pause, the President “It does not give me pause that Mr. Assad or others in Tehran may be trying to spin the deal in a way that they think is favorable to what their constituencies want to hear. That’s what politicians do”¦
.
Obama, of course, is a politician.
[ADDENDUM: More here on the sycophantic press’s reaction to the reporter’s “disrespectful” question about the hostages.]
A few more of my post-Iran-deal predictions
For a person who tends not to make too many predictions, I’ve certainly been making some lately.
So here are a few more, for what they’re worth:
I don’t think the Israelis will bomb Iran’s facilities unless they get some direct intelligence that Iran is contemplating attacking them with a nuclear weapon and it is imminent. I think they will go a different route, because bombing is too risky or perhaps even precluded by Russia’s selling Iran defensive weapons.
I don’t think Iran will choose to actually use nuclear weapons on Israel. Too provocative, too obvious. They will be far more likely to give a smaller type of nuclear weapon (suitcase bomb?? I don’t know all the technical possibilities) to terrorists. They will most definitely use the threat inherent in their mere possession (or imminent possession) of nuclear weapons to increase their dominance in their entire mideast region and the world.
The Iranians will also use the money they get from the lifting of sanctions to finance terrorist operations around the world, to spread the message of fundamentalist Shiite Islam, and to solidify their power at home.
The mullahs will stay in power in Iran, and they will continue to use moderate puppets in high government positions as a front to soften their image on the world stage. They will continue to stomp on human rights at home, and the US and the west will do nothing about that.
Obama and his supporters will continue to spin all these results as the greatest thing since sliced bread. A great many listeners will think that the fact that Iran hasn’t used nuclear weapons proves that the Republicans were just fearmongers creating a tempest in a teapot in order to undermine Obama. The real results of the deal (such as the above list) will be more subtle than a bombing, and less easily connected to it as being results of the deal.
And what of Israel? It will continue to exist but be increasingly isolated by the rest of the world, and increasingly under terrorist attack. I believe Israel will continue to fight against Iran’s nuclear development—not by bombing Iran, but through cyberattacks on those systems and through other covert means.
Will the next US president continue the anti-Israel stance of Obama? If a Republican, certainly not. If a Democrat (we’ll assume Hillary Clinton), I’m actually still not sure. Although I believe she would be more anti-Israel than a Republican president would be, she might be a bit less anti-Israel than Obama has been. But as I said, I just don’t know about that one.
Lastly, will Iran’s government ever become more liberal (in the sense of increased human rights and less support for terrorism)? I don’t see it happening except perhaps on a very long time scale, something like forty or fifty years or more, and perhaps not even then.
[NOTE: This piece by Mark Steyn on the Iran deal is recommended.]
And to go back to that SCOTUS decision on same-sex marriage
I realize this is a bit late, but somehow I missed the day that PJ published my latest article there, and therefore I neglected to link to it here.
So here it is, my most recent (from July 7th) PJ article for your perusal.
[NOTE: By the way, although it touches briefly on the issue, that article is not the promised piece on why so many conservative justices change their minds and end up voting liberal either consistently or on certain cases. That one is still coming, and I think it’s a fascinating topic.]
Selling Iran the rope
A quote from Lenin that’s been running through my head, post Iran deal:
“The Capitalists will sell us the rope with which we will hang them.”
Several commenters here have pointed out the ramifications of the Iran deal, particularly to Europe. Europe was chomping at the bit to get access to trade with Iran, and for many Europeans sticking it to Israel into the bargain would be a feature, not a bug.
Russia was already about to trade with Iran, by the way, as announced in April. But the reason Russia was going to do this was that the Iran deal was already in the offing, and Russia knew sanctions would be lifted and wanted to get the jump on the action before the West did. The missiles Russia is selling Iran are defensive in nature only, but:
…[T]he Kremlin is lifting a ban on selling a powerful air defense system to Iran that would render an airstrike on Tehran’s nuclear weapons facilities nearly impossible.
The delivery of the new weapon, called the Almaz-Antei S-300PMU-1””known as the SA-20 Gargoyle in NATO parlance””would effectively force the U.S. to rely on its small fleet of stealth aircraft to strike targets inside Iran in case the mullahs make a dash for the bomb. But even those aircraft might have a difficult time.
So, the diplomatic machinations of the Obama administration have made it impossible for most nations to attack Iran’s weapons facilities, and has made it very difficult even for us to do so. Nice.
And please recall that this was a missile system that, in Obama’s first term, he had fought against letting Russia give to Iran:
The U.S. government has lobbied Russia hard for years to prevent the sale of the S-300 to Iran. In 2010, convincing Putin to suspend the sale of the S-300 to Iran was heralded as a major foreign policy coup by the Obama administration. In many ways, it was one of the central achievements of the so-called reset in relations with Moscow, said Heather Conley, a Russia expert at the Center for Strategic and International Studies in Washington.
Those were the days, my friend.
Even if Obama had wanted to hang tough in the Iran negotiations (and there is no indication that he did), this Russian missile deal announced in April would have made it very difficult to do so:
“I find it almost hilarious that the Russians are saying, ”˜It’s an entirely defensive system and cannot attack anyone, including Israel,’” the [an Air Force commander] said. “But it also essentially makes Iran attack-proof by Israel and almost any country without fifth-gen [stealth fighter] capabilities. In other words, Iran, with the S-300, can continue to do what they want once those systems are in place without fear of attack from anyone save the U.S. Brilliant chess move”¦”
It seems to me that Israel will have to attack before these systems are in place, if it attacks at all. What a horrific dilemma for them—a dilemma that should be giving Obama no end of pleasure, since it will be putting his most detested head of state, Benjamin Netanayhu, on the hot seat.
And about that rope to sell. From commenter “Cornhead”:
So now Europe gets some oil and gas and the French and Brits sell cigarettes to the Iran. Nice deal in light of the fact that Iran will turn up its terrorism funding. And the terrorists will be sent to Paris and London.
And other countries in the Mideast—and most likely the US, the Great Satan.
The political aftermath of the Iran deal
Anyone who thought Hillary Clinton might part company with Obama was betting on the wrong horse: she’s given tentative approval to the deal, leaving herself a tiny bit of wiggle room.
Obama and the MSM will spin the Iran deal as great victory, something like Obamacare writ large and on a world stage. The American people will be sold a pack of lies (as with Obamacare) about what the deal entails: lots of checks on nuclear proliferation and the like. There will be a lot of self-congratulation on the left. The actual results of the deal won’t be clear for years, probably after the 2016 election—like a time bomb (literally).
As I wrote before, the reaction I’ve seen from blogs on the left is approval, and crowing about the defeat of the conservatives and Republicans. From the right, I’ve seen a lot of this sort of thing (found in the comments at Instapundit):
But but, I voted for republicans! And they won! Does that mean that they are useless? And weak? And on the same side as the mad mullahs?
I wish I had known – I would have voted to keep that democrat twinkie in office – at least I knew whose side she was on.
In other words, blame the Republicans.
Those who think I’m into kneejerk defense of Republicans don’t know me very well. I follow wherever logic takes me. I couldn’t care less about defending Republicans. I’m not a party member, and I’m certainly not a party operative. I find most of them lacking in courage and vision, as well as sometimes corrupt, and I find the current leadership to be especially awful. But blaming Republicans for this particular thing is just plain wrong (sometimes I think that comments like the one I quoted above are actually posted by leftist trolls; and does anyone think the election of Romney wouldn’t have prevented this?).
I’ve gone into the following before, but it bears repeating:
(1) Why do you think the Iran deal is always referred to as a “deal” rather than a treaty? Because Obama would never have called it a treaty and submitted it to Congress for approval, and in fact, as a multilateral arms agreement, there’s actually precedent for his position (although not precedent for going against the basic interests of the US and the opinion of a majority in Congress).
(2) Corker-Menendez actually introduced a way for Congress to vote on it and disapprove of it, particularly and especially the lifting of sanctions, which it delays. What’s more, any ability Congress may have had to block it as a treaty still remains open to them, as far as I can tell.
(3) If and when Congress fails to act on this, I will consider them craven cowards and/or collaborators. But if they do act and vote to refuse to lift sanctions and/or refuse to approve the deal, they may only have a simple majority. Obama has already made it crystal clear he will veto their disapproval, which means they need 2/3 (I think in both houses) to override. Will they get it? That depends on…
(4) …Democrats. What will they do? It’s an opportunity for them to show themselves to be patriots and people of principle, but they’ve shown no such propensities for a very long time, and I don’t see them showing them now. I hope I’m wrong. But my prediction is that although Republicans and some Democrats will vote against the deal, not enough Democrats will join in order to successfully override Obama’s veto.
(5) The same thing is true of conviction re the 2/3 vote. The Republicans have the votes to impeach but not convict, the latter of which needs 2/3 of the Senate. Can anyone envision conviction receiving that many Democrat votes? I truly can’t.
(6) And no, Boehner did not rule out impeachment. See this post from March. At the end of that post, I also added this prediction:
[Republicans in the House] will not impeach Obama unless they think they can win a conviction [in the Senate], and I think that’s wise.
I actually think there’s a small chance that Obama’s actions on Iran could force their hand, depending on what he does and how awful it is. How likely do I think it is that enough Democrats would turn on Obama, and that the Republicans would then act? Highly unlikely.
But it has not been ruled out.
The same is still true. I think Obama is guilty of more than enough to justify his impeachment and then conviction, but I do not think enough Democrats would turn on him. Until that happens, impeachment would only bolster sympathy and support for him.
I don’t like those facts. I actually think they are disastrous.
[ADDENDUM: Some details here on how Congressional review would work.
Here are sixteen reasons why the deal is a catastrophe. Obama and Kerry have abandoned virtually all of the things they had said would be dealbreakers. Wonder how many people who call themselves “liberals” will notice.]
Von Rothbart and the Iran deal
You may think I’ve gone stark raving mad. What could Van Rothbart, the evil magician in the ballet “Swan Lake,” have to do with the Iran deal?
Answer: not all that much. But in the wake of the Iran deal I keep having an image of a moment from the third act of that ballet.
Let me set the scene. Most people know about Act II of the ballet, in which Swan Queen Odette has been cast under a spell by the evil magician von Rothbart. He has turned her into a white swan, only allowed to resume her human form at night, and then only semi-human because she retains some of her swan characteristics. This makes for some lovely dancing when we meet Odette, she meets the Prince, and they fall in love.
Now, as with many spells, there’s a catch—an escape hatch, if you will. If a man falls in love with her and declare his eternal love, she becomes free unless his vow is broken. If he betrays her, she’s stuck forever in swanland.
The ballet never explains why Rothbart has it in for her; he is evil, and he just does. But when Odette and the Prince look as though they’re on their way to freedom, he can’t let that happen. Since he’s into spells, he disguises his daughter as the Swan Queen, only this time she wears a black tutu rather than a white one and is named Odile—just to help the audience out, unless it would get too confused. She arrives at a party at the castle and beguiles the Prince though her beauty, her dancing, and her crafty imitation of Odette. Although in most versions I’ve seen she emanates evil and should hardly fool a child into thinking she’s actually Odette (even though both roles are danced by the same ballerina), somehow the gullible Prince (who must want to believe) is fooled.
That’s when the moment comes: Rothbart makes it clear to the Prince (in mime) that he must vow eternal love (in mime, which involves hand on heart and other arm raised, with two fingers pointing upwards) to Odile. Our silly Prince happily makes the vow, at which point von Rothbart and Odile laugh in triumph and run off to the accompaniment of various stage effects that vary with the productions, but which often involve flashes of lightning, small explosions, and smoke, and more of their raucous “I fooled you!” laughter. After this, even the dumb-but-well-meaning Prince realizes he’s been had, especially as the figure of Odette has appeared, mourning, through a window and behind a scrim. The scene closes with the Prince racing off in panic to find her, and then with the Queen, his domineering mother, fainting at the shock and horror of it all. This was not what she had planned for the party.
I’m making light of it, perhaps because I’m in a bitter mood, and also because it’s extremely easy to make fun of such over-the-top schmaltz. It looks especially silly on video. But let me just say that when you are in a theater and watch a really good version, where the principles carry conviction as well as technique, the denouement is one of the most dramatic moments on the stage, almost guaranteed to send a literal chill down one’s spine.
I looked for a definitive version on YouTube that highlights the triumphant and derisive laughter, but unfortunately I couldn’t find one with camerawork that focused on von Rothbart and Odile. The video-takers are usually too busy looking at the Prince and all the general hubbub to notice. But this 2005 production of American Ballet Theater will give you a bit of the idea (I’ve cued it up to automatically start at the right point):
Now to get back to the Iran deal analogy, who’s who? Between Obama and Kerry, who’s von Rothbart and who’s Odile? Well, it’s not a perfect match, but I think I’ve put them in the right order. However, the hapless Prince would have to be the American people and the Western world, although they (like the Prince) bear some guilt for bad judgment.
Those who ascribe to the “fool rather than knave” theory of Obama (I do not) would say that Obama is the Prince as well, with the Iranian mullahs von Rothbart and perhaps Rouhani as Odile.
I haven’t mentioned the way the ballet ends. You may already know: Odette and the Prince kill themselves, and are united in heaven. In the Soviet version, which didn’t cotton to that sort of thing, the Prince killed von Rothbart and broke the spell, and the couple lived happily ever after in a large and state-furnished apartment on vodka and caviar.
I made that last little bit up about the apartment, but the rest was true.
[NOTE: I have a feeling this will be the only post I’ll ever write that is listed under “Dance” plus “Iran.”]
[ADDENDUM: Just now, only a few minutes after publishing this post, I noticed this at Powerline by Scott Johnson: a photo of Iranian Foreign Minister and negotiator Javad Zarif yesterday, standing on a balcony at the nuclear talks venue and laughing. The post is entitled, “How to think about the Iran deal in one photo.” Indeed—same as von Rothbart and Odile.]
Iran deal is reached
We knew it was coming. We’ve known it for a long, long time.
So here it is (lots of articles and reactions at the link).
These are my initial thoughts (I plan to write more a bit later in the day):
(1) From what I’ve read, the administration has backed off from many of even the minimal guarantees and checks it initially swore it would have in place. And although this is no surprise whatsoever, it is still shocking (that sentence is something I could say about the entire deal).
(2) I checked a liberal blog, HuffPo, to see the reaction there. I found the usual combination of jubilation and mockery of the conservative reaction and of Netanyahu. I’ll take this as typical. I assume there are some Scoop Jackson Democrats left in the world (after all, there are a few in Congress, such as Menendez), but I certainly didn’t see them there.
(3) I haven’t read much about what caused other countries such as France, which I seem to recall was raising some objections, to issue its approval. But here’s an interesting article from a different perspective—Agence France-Presse—that describes some of the international hurdles ahead in its implementation.
(4) I agree with this at Patterico:
Basically, we caved in every single aspect of the negotiations. Iran will get in excess of $150,000,000,000 in sanctions relief. Although the Liar in Chief says we get anytime anywhere inspections, that is not even remotely hinted at in the information released, as Iran can veto and deny access, and appeal to a panel, dragging this out for weeks and months. Iran can sell their oil on the world market, which will give them even more cash to fund their terrorist proxies throughout the region.
All this does is delay Iran getting full nuclear capability until someone else is in office.
Their legacy achievement is that we have basically given up on the region, and abandoned our partners in the region.
(5) If you think my affect is calm, it really isn’t. But this news is in the nature of hearing that someone who’s been on life support for several years has died. There was virtually no doubt that Obama would do whatever it took to get a “deal.” If one side is prepared to capitulate, the outcome is a foregone conclusion, and the only question is exactly what will be given up.
(6) Should the US put itself on the terrorist list, now that we’re funding terrorist organizations?
[NOTE: I plan to write another post today on the political ramifications and possible reactions from Congress.]
Meanwhile…
…Scott Walker declares himself a candidate:
Now the criticism will resume at a new pace—including from the right.
I like Walker. He’s one of my favored candidates, and has been for a long time. He combines conservatism with the ability to win in a blue state. He’s a bit bland, but he’s got that midwestern affability that I think will come across quite well, especially when conbined with his record of accomplishment in an executive role.
What’s more, he’s very young-looking. Don’t knock it. Of course, he’s not the only young-looking candidate, Rubio being a prime example.
[NOTE: I’ve written about Walker’s change of stance on amnesty before, here.
I believe that the first time I wrote about Walker with approval as a possible national candidate might have been in this 2012 article, when I described him as one of several up-and-coming conservatives from blue states: “Reagan’s Children.”]
We do have a deal—about Greece
It’s a proposal for a deal, anyway. The Greek Parliament has to approve.
Here’s what it looks like so far:
Monday’s deal requires Greece to give access to bailout monitors on the ground in Athens — including officials from the IMF, a point Tsipras resisted to the last.
He was elected on promises to reverse austerity and end intrusive monitoring, and the agreement will raise questions about whether he can continue in his post.
I keep reading the negotiations being referred to as a “marathon.” Apropos.