Biden’s ugly betrayal of the Iranian people

The New Neo Posted on by

That’s the title of this article by Mariam Memarsadeghi in Tablet:

It was during the Trump maximum pressure campaign that the demands of the Iranian people—as manifested by protest slogans, dissident letters, social media discourse, and more—traversed unmistakably to an absolute opposition to the totality of the regime and the demand for its wholesale removal. Contrary to the warning of those who supported the Iran deal and opposed the maximum pressure strategy, crippling sanctions did not cause the people of Iran to rally behind the regime’s flag. It caused them to revolt against it.

The Iranian people proved the overwhelming consensus of Iran experts in the United States and Europe to be wrong. Not only did Iranians not protest against the United States or against international sanctions, they made clear in their protest slogans that their enemy is the regime, not America.

Actually, a great many foreign policy events for several decades – starting, for me, with the fall of the Soviet Union – have seemed to prove the “overwhelming consensus” of foreign policy experts to be wrong.

The article also goes into what seems to be the required paragraph of Trump-bashing, with such typical stuff as “The same democratic liberties and institutions which the Iranian people sought to achieve with American support, Trump often seemed to threaten at home.” No examples, naturally. Then it segues into a description of what Biden has done:

For the Iranian people, Biden’s repeat of Obama’s betrayals is made all the worse because of the open failures of the Iran deal—which the new administration is choosing to repeat nonetheless. Appeasement 2.0 is being led by the same Obama team that traded the aspirations for freedom of the Green Movement in Iran and later the people’s uprising against the dictator Bashar Assad in Syria for the phony “peace” of kicking the can of the Islamic Republic’s nuclear program down the road for a few years under U.S. protection.

That Trump’s maximum pressure campaign and the Abraham Accords have provided America with tremendous leverage against its imperial enemy in the Middle East is a fact that is dismissed resentfully by the Biden administration. Reversing the Trump gains because they are Trump gains means more to the appeasers than protecting America or advancing American security interests in the region—let alone giving hope to the people who still look to America as a beacon of freedom.

In the short time since taking office, Biden has already snubbed Iranian dissidents who courageously wrote to him from inside Iran, some writing from prison, urging him to maintain sanctions and other pressures on the regime and to provide support and solidarity for their democratic struggle. Instead, their message was received as an inconvenience by a White House national security team staffed with some of the regime’s leading U.S.-based apologists. The administration then quickly provided other sweeteners to the regime, including the lifting of sanctions on their proxy in Yemen, the lifting of restrictions on its arms buying and selling, the lifting of U.S. opposition to an IMF loan, and the neutering of a pro-freedom public diplomacy initiative from the State Department, which went overnight from being a popular source of information on the regime’s repression and corruption to the butt of jokes among Iranian democracy activists…

Biden’s policy of appeasement has been accompanied by large increases in the number of executions and deaths in custody of political prisoners, the taking of foreign hostages for ransom, and threats to kill dual nationals like Swedish Iranian researcher Ahmadreza Djalali. The new administration has, in effect, taken every opportunity to demonstrate to Iran’s thuggish theocracy that it will give in, even signaling that the regime’s holding of American hostages will not be an impediment to negotiations on the nuclear program.

There was never a moment’s question that this would be the result of a Biden presidency. Those who voted for him – and whether or not you think Biden won the actual vote, there were plenty of people who did in fact vote for him – either did not care about Iran, did not know about Iran, or considered getting rid of Trump the most important thing of all. Trump was a demon, and demons must be exorcised no matter what the cost might be.

In that regard, the gratuitous Trump-bashing by the author of the article is not irrelevant. It’s part and parcel of the retention of the “Trump is evil” mindset even in many of those who should know better, for example those who recognize (as the author does) the good things he did in Iran and the Middle East as a whole, and the bad things the Biden administration is doing.

The Iran policy of the Biden administration was always going to be a return to the glorious days of Obama’s appeasement of Iran, and so it has played out that way. It’s a combination of a kneejerk undoing of anything Trump did – even the good things or perhaps especially the good things – and some twisted leftist geopolitical theory that dictates making things easy for the mullahs. What the American people might want and what the Iranian people might want is not even on this administration’s radar screen.

[NOTE: I tend to write “the Biden administration” rather than just “Biden” because it’s not clear who’s actually behind any of Biden’s policies, and how much input he has in his own presidency.]

Some Democrat senators briefly leave the reservation and the left is outraged

The New Neo Posted on by

The situation was a vote on the minimum wage hike to $15, but for some people the issue was not primarily the hike itself but the process by which it was being voted on. It was attached to the so-called COVID relief bill, something it is not really related to, in order to allow it to be passed by a simple majority via the reconciliation process that is available for budget bills. The Senate parliamentarian had already said such an attachment should not be allowed, but most Democrats could not care less about that sort of nicety.

Joe Manchin and Krysten Sinema voted “no,” and the latter has clearly explained that her vote was not against the minimum wage but against the process. She voted “no” with a dramatic flair, and this riled the left nearly as much as her vote itself. They’re not used to any Democrats acting in so mavericky a fashion, although they love it when Republicans do it. In addition, the criticism from the left that you can see at that link indicates they are ignoring the process argument and acting as though Sinema just hates poor people – but, then again, since the left believes the ends justifies the means, process arguments mean nothing to them except on the occasions they can use them against Republicans.

All of the Republicans in the Senate voted against the bill. That’s interesting, because there are often a few defections, but this time the defections were all on the Democrat side, because Manchin and Sinima were not alone. Here’s the list:

Sen. Tom Carper (DE)
Sen. Chris Coons (DE)
Sen. Maggie Hassan (NH)
Sen. Angus King (I-ME)
Sen. Joe Manchin (WV)
Sen. Jeanne Shaheen (NH)
Sen. Kyrsten Sinema (AZ)
Sen. Jon Tester (MT)

I’m rather surprised that both of New Hampshire’s senators voted “no.” They are usually good party hacks, who during campaign years present themselves as moderate in order to appeal to voters, but who just about always toe the party line even in votes on something quite extreme. Here’s what Hassan said through spokespeople:

Both senators have called for raising the federal minimum wage to $12, but said it should be done in a separate bill.

Shaheen’s office said Friday that the senator supports raising the minimum wage to $15 an hour, but with “safeguards” in place for small businesses and restaurants that have been particularly hard-hit by the pandemic. In her interview with WMUR, Shaheen also expressed concerns about local nursing homes already struggling to employ people “because of the wage scale.”

So it seems to be a combination of regard for the process and objection to some aspects of the thing itself – and my reading is that the latter is far more important to both senators than the former, because New Hampshire is still rather fiscally conservative and they feel such a vote would be unpopular. I assume that in the end they will vote for it in a separate bill, however, if it comes to that. That’s what they do.

Stripped of the minimum wage addition, the COVID relief bill has passed the Senate along strict party lines – which means with a very narrow majority, since it’s technically considered a budget bill that can be passed by a simple majority. No Democrat defectors there, where it would count. McConnell characterized the bill this way:

The Senate has never spent $2 trillion in a more haphazard way. [Democrats’] top priority wasn’t pandemic relief. It was their Washington wish list.

He’s not wrong.

In the car with mom

The New Neo Posted on by

Those who grew up before cars had seat belts, please raise your hands.

I certainly did, and what I remember was this: when I was a toddler, I stood on the seat to the right of my mother while she drove. That way I could see everything. It was very heady and a bit frightening. When my mother had to stop the car quickly, she’d shoot out her right arm to keep me from falling forward.

Obviously, this wouldn’t have worked for a shorter stop at faster speed. But we were just tootling around town, going to the grocery store and the like. It rather stuns me to remember the arrangement.

I also recall once getting a ride in the bread truck up and down my block. Nowadays the guy would probably be arrested for it, but he was perfectly nice to me and it was a lot of fun. Yes, bread was delivered in a special truck just for that, as were milk, and meat, and fish, and fruits and vegetables. Really, it wasn’t all that often we had to go to the grocery store for anything. Good thing, too, because it wasn’t open past 5 PM, nor was it open on Sundays.

My recollection is that the bread truck driver stood when he drove, or sat on a little high stool. Is that possible? Could that be correct? I’m not all that old, but this stuff seems archaic, almost as ancient as my mother’s memory of horses drinking at the trough outside her house when she was growing up. That wasn’t in Montana, either; it was in New York City.

More trouble for Cuomo

The New Neo Posted on by

Now we have this:

Andrew Cuomo’s aides asked the state health department to change its definition of COVID nursing home deaths, it has been claimed, in a bid to reduce the total and lessen the criticism of the embattled New York governor.

On Thursday night The Wall Street Journal reported that Cuomo’s team sought the changes in July.

The bombshell report comes hours after one of three women accusing Cuomo of sexual assault spoke out on television for the first time, adding to his horrendous week.

When the left gets out the long knives, they don’t fool around. This is the sort of thing the right knew or strongly suspected about Cuomo long ago, so why is this a case of Now It Can Be Told? Whoever is finally coming forward to rat out Cuomo could have done so last summer.and chose to keep quiet till now. Something has changed.

One thing, I suppose, is that Cuomo isn’t needed as a loudmouth foil to Trump anymore. Another is that there may be even worse to come on Cuomo and they want to get ahead of the story. Still another is that a lot of people on the left may have had parents and grandparents who have died as a result of Cuomo’s policies and coverup, and they’re angry. Still another is that New Yorkers may finally be sick of all the COVID restrictions and want to live more normally again, so they just want Cuomo to go away.

What does the left think would be the danger in leaving Trump’s CPAC speech on YouTube?

The New Neo Posted on by

They’ve removed it, and they’ve suspended Right Side Broadcasting for publishing it.

The left has been banning and canceling people for quite some time, but a more blatant and extreme form of institutional (and corporate) censorship began – as far as I can recall – with the blocking of the Hunter Biden laptop story and of anyone who tried to post it or refused to pretend it didn’t exist. That was a watershed as far as I’m concerned.

What are they most afraid of concerning the viewing of Trump’s speech? I can think of a number of things:

(1) They’re afraid of Trump’s continued ability to have a platform at all to reach those who aren’t already his supporters. Actually, they’d like to stop him from communicating with supporters as well, but unless they raid and arrest everyone at CPAC they won’t be able to do that, and they haven’t done anything to CSPAN (which apparently still gives access to the speech), for example.
(2) They’re afraid of Trump’s stating the now-heretical thought that there was massive and meaningful fraud in the 2020 election.
(3) They’re afraid of the contrast between Trump’s vitality and Biden’s fragility.
(4) They’re afraid of Trump’s searing criticisms of Biden and of this administration’s programs.
(5) They’re afraid of Trump’s statements of what the right needs to do to achieve victory.

Does YouTube (to take one example) really think these thoughts can be stopped from reaching the public? Or are they just making nice to the woke and showing how virtuous they are? Do they think there’s anyone in the US who doesn’t already know that Trump thought the 2020 election was stolen? Surely this would not be news? By making this speech of Trump’s forbidden fruit expressing forbidden thoughts, don’t they enhance them and make people seek them out?

For some people, yes. But I’m going to assume that YouTube thinks that the majority of people who might otherwise watch the speech just won’t bother, and will remain in blissful ignorance of whatever Trump has said.

No guns on January 6th

The New Neo Posted on by

Well, fancy that:

A leading counterterrorism official at the Federal Bureau of Investigation confirmed on Wednesday that, despite frequent and baseless claims that the protests at the U.S. Capitol on January 6th was supposedly an “armed insurrection,” no firearms were recovered in the aftermath of the protests, as reported by the Epoch Times.

Jill Sanborn, the FBI’s counterrorism chief, confirmed this significant detail during sworn testimony before the Senate. When asked by Senator Ron Johnson (R-Wisc.) how many firearms were confiscated from the protesters who were arrested, Sanborn said “to my knowledge, none.”…

Johnson, along with other Republican critics of the investigation, has correctly pointed out that the protests could not be described as an “armed insurrection,” as many Democrats have called it, due to the fact that no guns were present on that day.

“If it’s properly termed an ‘armed insurrection,’” Johnson said in an interview last week, “it was a pretty ragtag one. If that was a planned armed insurrection, you really have a bunch of idiots.”

This obviously was a crowd with access to guns and experience with guns, and yet no guns were brought into the building. The conclusion is inescapable – but lots of people will manage somehow to escape it, courtesy of the Democrats, the press, and their own confirmation biases. Early on, the press widely (and baselessly, as they say in the MSM biz) reported that guns were involved; you can find a list of links on that if you scroll down here. The all-important narrative – guns, armed insurrection, the murderous crowd wielding a fire extinguisher that supposedly killed Officer Sicknick with a blow to the head – was set early and often.

In no surprise, HR1 passes in the House…

The New Neo Posted on by

…along strict party lines.

This is the Democrats’ top priority, something I’ve written about several times before on this blog (see this, for example). One would think that if Democrats cared to fix the fact that half the nation doesn’t trust elections anymore, and to reassure people that future elections would have integrity, HR1 would be the last way to go about it after the debacle that was the 2020 eletion.

But to Democrats, that election was no debacle. COVID gave them the opportunity to sneak parts of HR1 – a bill they first passed after the election of 2018 gave them the House – into the election rules of certain states. They were intent back in early 2019 on making those changes mandatory for the entire nation and overriding the wishes of any state that wanted to make its rules more secure, and they are intent on the same thing now.

And now they hold the Senate – but barely. Joe Manchin and Krysten Sinema have said they will not vote to end the filibuster. Since passing a bill like HR1 requires the ending of the filibuster, can you imagine the pressure being brought to bear on those two right now (if in fact they are serious about their defiance, that is, and it’s not just for temporary show)?

And note that every single Democrat in the House voted for HR1. The idea that some of them are moderate is a fiction, although come election time a lot of people seem to forget (or perhaps don’t pay attention in the first place) and vote for them anyway. We’ll see whether, in the Senate, Manchin and Sinema hold to the moderate line.

I also notice that this Fox News story doesn’t even mention the bill’s federalization of the insecure voting rules that is the proposed change that arouses the strongest objections from the GOP. That is a remarkable omission.

You can find a summary of those changes here, here, and here. What is in this bill should make your hair stand on end, and should outrage all Americans. Of course, much of America will probably applaud and in addition a goodly number of voters will be unaware of what’s happening.

[ADDENDUM: Actually, one lone Democrat voted against the bill, although not because of its voting rules changes.]