Obama Administration Gives Iran Six-Month Free Pass on Sanctions

The Obama administration is of the opinion that now is the time to reward Iran for supposedly “cooperating” with the international community. In doing so, the White House announced Wednesday that the U.S. would suspend enforcement of Iran oil sanctions for six months.

White House Press Secretary Jay Carney said:

While market conditions suggest that there is sufficient supply to permit additional reductions in purchases of Iranian oil, the United States has committed to suspend Iran oil sanctions for six months and pause efforts to further reduce Iran’s crude oil sales for a six-month period under the Joint Plan of Action between the P5+1 and Iran. In return for this and other limited relief measures, Iran has committed to take steps that halt, and in key respects roll back, progress on its nuclear program.

Carney claimed that the UN’s International Atomic Energy Agency (IAEA) “has verified that Iran is complying with these new commitments.” He continued, “Global oil supply disruptions in recent months increased, compared with earlier this year, but the resulting supply was offset by increased petroleum production, particularly in the United States.” Carney said that because there is a sufficient supply of non-Iranian oil in world markets, the Obama administration felt it necessary to lift the sanctions entirely.

The sanctions relief comes on the heels of Iran’s Ayatollah openly stating that he did not believe the U.S. would ever consider a military strike to thwart Tehran’s nuclear capabilities. The Ayatollah stood on a podium surrounded by banners that read, “America cannot do a damn thing.”

Recently, the Ayatollah, Iran’s chief decision maker and ultimate authority, stressed that Iran would defeat “evil” America through endless “battle and jihad.”

After Khamenei announced for the world to hear that he intends to defeat America, while at West Point, President Obama spoke of the Iranian nuclear program. He stated, “Now we have an opportunity to resolve our differences peacefully.”




Source: Breitbart Feed

And Now a Word About Nancy Reagan, American Morale, and the Celebration of Reaganism

For those who are considered to be members of the Reagan family–White House staff, campaign staff, writers, biographers, affiliated memberships–all have often heard over the years from their fellow citizens about Reagan, “He made me feel good about myself.”

For the less thoughtful, it was dismissed as a comment of the unsophisticated, reminding some of the quip by Adlai Stevenson in 1952 when an excited woman told him “All the intelligent people are voting for you” to which the Democratic nominee replied, “Yes ma’am, but I need a majority.”

In fact, the comment about individuals “feeling good” about themselves was precisely what Reagan wanted to achieve and even said so in his farewell remarks; he considered his greatest accomplishment the restoration of American morale and spirit.

The fundamental difference between Barack Obama and Ronald Reagan is that Obama wants the American people to feel good about him but Reagan wanted the American people to feel good about themselves.

This the essential difference between those on the left who believe in the state, who believe in collectivism–to acquire power by convincing (or ordering) the individual to surrender power ostensibly for their own good.

What liberals never want to debate are their own failings. After all, this is why GK Chesterton said the very purpose of progressivism was to make mistakes and then move on.

A nation of happy and self-confident spiritual individuals is a successful country; in another phrase, American Exceptionalism.

Reagan believed in this down to the marrow of his bones.

Yet he did not arrive at this world view all on his own. It came from his parents, it came from autodidactic education, and it also came from Nancy Reagan. No one who took as many unfair bean balls from the left and from liberal journalists over the years could have survived without a spring of individual optimism welling up from inside.

During the 1980 campaign, a perpetually dyspeptic reporter attacked Mrs. Reagan in a column for handing out chocolate to the traveling press. Rather than storming about, the next day, she walked down the aisle of the campaign plane again with her chocolates but with a sign around her neck that read, “Take one! Or else!”

You have to have a lot of self-confidence to do that, or to realize the press corps was attacking you as a way of getting to your husband. For over 50 years, she stood at his side and was blunt about her role, once telling an interviewer that of course she gave “Ronnie” her opinions and felt entitled to because, for one good reason, they shared the same bed.

She was once described as a “Metternich in Adolfo dresses.” Metternich was the great Austrian diplomat who got things done. Nancy Reagan got things done.

And then came the Alzheimer’s. During those ten years, she never flinched, never walked away, assumed the increased responsibility and did so with resolution and courage. This is known but what is not known, for instance, is that during the week of the funeral for her husband, she still took time to meet with and personally thank all the White House staff from the 1980’s.

That was ten years ago.

A large turnout is expected at the Reagan Library on June 5, the anniversary of the passing of the Gipper. Speeches by Fred Ryan, the estimable chairman of the Board of the Reagan Library, Jim Baker, Reagan’s very capable first chief of staff and later Treasury Secretary, will cover the legacy and the life and times of the 40th president.

There will also be a panel with Reagan biographers including Lou Cannon and moderated by Peggy Noonan. Also, a wreath laying ceremony at Reagan’s gravesite.

This year marks a number of important anniversaries for Reagan besides his passing. It is also the 50th anniversary of his historic speech for Barry Goldwater, the 25th anniversary of his departure from the White House and the 30th anniversary of his overwhelming re-election in 1984.

But for his friend, soul mate, guardian, lover, best friend and wife, Nancy Reagan, it is also the 20th anniversary of learning that her beloved “Ronnie” was diagnosed with Alzheimer’s, plungin her life into an dark abyss, but also allowing her to find an ever deeper love for her husband and for her faith.

They had looked forward to their golden years together after the whirlwind of 40 years of national politics, from the days of the Screen Actors Guild to their eight monumental years in Washington.

Alas, it was not to be so. And yet, there is much to celebrate, much to be happy about, and much to consider. Would the epidemic of drug abuse have become a national issue without Nancy Reagan putting a spotlight on it? Would the millions raised for Alzheimer’s research have come about without her tireless campaigning for it?

The Reagans were often derided because she supposedly did not have a cause but what the liberal critics meant was she did not have a politically correct cause. Welcoming home the Vietnam POW’s was not politically correct in the early 1970’s but that is precisely what Nancy Reagan, Ross Perot, Richard Nixon and Ronald Reagan did.

Telling reporters in 1980 that his wife’s main cause, if he was elected, would be him caused a stir and yet, would John Adams be John Adams without Abigail? Would Franklin Roosevelt be the president he was without Eleanor? To believe in others, to believe in a country and a way of life, it is helpful and maybe essential to have Someone believe in you.

Nancy Reagan believed in Ronald Reagan.

The events at the Reagan Library on the 5th and every day, celebrate the life and legacy of Ronald Wilson Reagan none of which he would have been accomplished without Nancy Davis Reagan. There had to be something about Reagan that appealed to her, something she saw in him.

After all, she’d once dated Clark Gable.

 




Source: Breitbart Feed

Independent Newspaper Falls for Canadian Kinder Egg Satire, Pulls Story

Britain’s Independent newspaper has become the latest victim of news satire after it published an article about Kinder Egg smugglers in the United States.

Kinder Eggs have technically been banned in the United States on health and safety grounds since 1938, and in recent years it was revealed that a fine for bringing the Italian-based products into the country stood at $2,500 per egg.

But the Independent took a satirical article from the Canadian Broadcasting Corporation’s ‘This and That’ show a tad too seriously, running an article about a Kinder smuggling ring being exposed.

The original article reads

Three Canadian women are being held in a Seattle detention centre after an elaborate Kinder Egg smuggling ring was uncovered. Border officials have seized more than 6,000 chocolate eggs containing tiny toys such as a little plastic horse that is also a whistle. 

The Italian confectionary is popular in Canada but illegal in the US where small plastic items, like a wind-up, walking piece of cake or a raccoon playing the trumpet, are considered choking hazards. This has created a lucrative black market, a source of increasing tension between the Harper and Obama governments.

A 500 ft. tunnel running from the outskirts of Abbotsford, B.C. to a shed in Clearbrook, WA was detected late last week by Dale Lawson while he was walking his dog: “Buster got into this weird looking shed,” say Lawson, “he comes out with chocolate in his mouth.” 

Lawson, worried that his dog could get sick, took the chocolate and found it contained a plastic capsule. “I thought maybe it was drugs but when I opened it up it was a little plastic fox dressed like a queen. I called the police right away.”

Police arrived just as Melanie Russet, Marg Spooner and Lynn Dodwell emerged from the tunnel with flats of chocolate eggs. The three were taken into custody and more arrests on both sides of the border are expected.

It’s estimated that up to 800,000 eggs cross the border every year and while there have yet to be any reported fatalities, it’s only a matter of time before a child chokes on a tiny house with googly eyes or a pen shaped like a ski.

Satire written by Kurt Smeaton.   

But no one at the Independent seemed to read the last line, which exposed the piece as a joke. Instead the paper published an entire article about the issue this morning before pulling the story.

The article could still be found on the Independent website’s internal search engine at the time of publication, though the link now goes back to the homepage.

A number of Twitter users were also fooled.




Source: Breitbart Feed

Homeowner with a Gun Stops Kermit Gosnell’s Son’s ‘Alleged Home Invasion’

The son of imprisoned Philadelphia abortion doctor Kermit Gosnell was “shot several times” by a homeowner during an “alleged home invasion.”

According to NBC10.com, police say Gosnell’s son – 22-year-old Barron Alexander – “was burglarizing a home shared by a group of undergrads in West Philadelphia” on the morning of June 4.

When he broke into the house, “three male residents were home.” Alexander “was taking items from the property, and a resident from the property woke up startled.” The resident called for help, and a second resident responded shooting Alexander “multiple times.”

Alexander was rushed to the Hospital of the University of Pennsylvania where he is “in critical but stable condition.”

Follow AWR Hawkins on Twitter @AWRHawkins. Reach him directly at awrhawkins@breitbart.com.




Source: Breitbart Feed

Left-Wing Media Rages at Column Calling Transgender Actor ‘Not a Woman’

This week Kevin Williamson of National Review stepped into the LGBT buzz saw for the crime of believing that a person with XY chromosomes is a man and not a woman.

He has been castigated in the gay press, mocked in the gay-sympathetic press, and has received calls for him to be “fired” from a big-city newspaper where he doesn’t even work.

Williamson, former Deputy Managing Editor at NR and frequent contributor to National Review Online, wrote a piece called “Laverne Cox Is Not a Woman.” It is something of companion piece to one he published last year called “Bradley Manning Is Not a Woman.”

Laverne Cox, a transgender actor with a role on the hit Netflix prison drama Orange Is the New Black, recently was featured in a Time magazine cover story on gender identity in America.

Williamson finds all this puzzling and annoying.

Williamson says gender was created in modern times as a way around the concreteness of sex and “is simply the mystical exercise in rearranging words to rearrange reality.”

He says, “Regardless of the question of whether he has had his genitals amputated, Cox is not a woman, but an effigy of a woman. Sex is biological reality, and it is not subordinate to subjective impressions, no matter how intense those impressions are held, or how painful they make facing the biological facts of life. No hormone injection or surgical mutilation is sufficient to change that.”

The media backlash seems to have started in earnest with the syndication of the column by the Chicago Sun Times. A swift chorus of outrage from groups such as GLAAD prompted the Times to back down almost immediately, removing the column and apologizing.

Others joined in.

Matt Wilstein of Mediaite writes that on the point of Cox not being a woman, “…Williamson is right. Cox is not a ‘woman’ in the narrow, traditional sense that he is capable of comprehending. But nor is she a ‘man’ in the way he insists on describing her throughout his intentionally offensive screed…”

Somebody at TheFrisky.com wants you to know: “Conservative National Review Asshat Declares ‘Laverne Cox is Not a Women’ Is Very Wrong.” Jessica Wakeman writes, “Why anyone cares what Williamson—whose job is simply ‘roving correspondent’ for the Review—has to say about transgender issues, I don’t know. But his piece—which we will not link to so as not to give it traffic—was so full of ignorant pseudoscience and bias that it couldn’t help but attract (mostly negative) attention.” She says Williamson “misgenders” Cox by calling him “him,” “he,” and “spokesman.”

Richard Lawson, writing in Vanity Fair, called Williamson a “conservative troll” and refers to his “ugly, buffoonish way” of refusing “to address Cox and Chelsea Manning by their preferred pronouns.” He calls it a “babyish bit of stinkery” from a “noted stinker.”

A website called “Lexie Cannes State of Trans” calls Williamson a “transphobe extraordinaire” and his piece a “bloody hit piece.” In the link to Williamson’s piece, Lexie Cannes provides a “trigger warning.”

Slate‘s Mark Joseph Stern says, “Humans are hard wired for empathy, which means we are prone to treat other people’s struggles with compassion and sympathy. This rule, however, doesn’t apply when the other people in question can be made to seem disordered, disgusting, and inhuman.” He calls Williamson’s piece “a strangely angry hatchet job…”

Last August Williamson wrote a far stronger piece about Bradley Manning in which he pointed out the linguistic gymnastics transgenderism invites us to perform. He mentions a 2013 case brought by the Department of Justice against a California school district for “sex discrimination” because they would not let a girl use the boy’s room. However, the case was not really about sex, which is a protected category, but about “gender identity.”

In that article Williamson quoted at length from Dr. Paul McHugh, former longtime head of psychiatry at Johns Hopkins University who famously closed the pioneering sex change unit at Johns Hopkins. McHugh said, “It is not obvious how [a patient’s] feeling that he is trapped in a man’s body differs from the feeling of a patient with anorexia nervosa that she is obese despite her emaciated, cachectic state. We don’t do liposuction on anorexics. Why amputate the genitals of these poor men? Surely, the fault is in the mind, not the member.”

Williamson is unrepentant. He told Breitbart News he is preparing a much longer article, now running to 12,000 words, tentatively titled “Alcoholism is a Sexual Orientation.”

He says doctors should not agree to perform sex change operations but makes clear he’s not calling for any laws against it. He says, “If this kind of thing were going on in a non-technological world, it would be treated like genital mutilation.” He calls such surgery “unethical.”

He says, “However strongly one feels about [transgenderism] emotionally, ethically, or politically, reality is reality; a man can never be a woman.”




Source: Breitbart Feed