"The danger to America is not Barack Obama but a citizenry capable of entrusting a man like him with the Presidency. It will be far easier to limit and undo the follies of an Obama presidency than to restore the necessary common sense and good judgment to a depraved electorate willing to have such a man for their president. The problem is much deeper and far more serious than Mr. Obama, who is a mere symptom of what ails America. Blaming the prince of the fools should not blind anyone to the vast confederacy of fools that made him their prince. The Republic can survive a Barack Obama, who is, after all, merely a fool. It is less likely to survive a multitude of fools such as those who made him their president." Author Unknown
Scroll down for articles for past week.
The Patriot Post
Tuesday’s Daily Digest
"It is of great importance to set a resolution, not to be shaken, never to tell an untruth. There is no vice so mean, so pitiful, so contemptible; and he who permits himself to tell a lie once, finds it much easier to do it a second and a third time, till at length it becomes habitual; he tells lies without attending to it, and truths without the world's believing him." —Thomas Jefferson, letter to Peter Carr, 1785
Your Patriot Post team always endeavors to improve our publication, which is a critical touchstone for Liberty. To that end, we have tightened up our Daily Digest of news, policy and opinion to cover more ground in fewer words, consistent with recommendations from you, our Patriot readers.
TOP RIGHT HOOKS
"Clinton Cash: The Untold Story of How and Why Foreign Governments and Businesses Helped Make Bill and Hillary Rich," by Peter Schweizer, is due to hit the bookshelves soon, but Republican presidential candidates are already taking advantage. That's because the Senate Foreign Relations Committee, including Rand Paul and Marco Rubio, was briefed on the book. The New York Times obtained a copy, too, and reports that the "186-page investigation of donations made to the Clinton Foundation by foreign entities ... asserts that foreign entities who made payments to the Clinton Foundation and to Mr. Clinton through high speaking fees received favors from Mrs. Clinton's State Department in return." The Times quotes a passage in which Schweizer writes, "We will see a pattern of financial transactions involving the Clintons that occurred contemporaneous with favorable U.S. policy decisions benefiting those providing the funds."
We know it's shocking to consider that Hillary Clinton's massive income and her record of "smart power" at the State Department might be tainted by these pay-to-play shenanigans, but Schweizer appears to have done his homework and provides numerous examples. Hillary's use of private email servers was problematic in large part because she was able to cover up the Clinton Foundation's dealings. No wonder she deleted tens of thousands of "personal" emails. And her response to the book is typical Hillary: It's just part of the vast right-wing conspiracy.
In Saturday's weekly address, Barack Obama devoted his lecture to Earth Day, which is Wednesday, and he doubled down on global warming so we can "protect this precious planet we call home." He claimed, "[T]oday, there's no greater threat to our planet than climate change. ... [T]he fact that the climate is changing has very serious implications for the way we live now. Stronger storms. Deeper droughts. Longer wildfire seasons. The world's top climate scientists are warning us that a changing climate already affects the air our kids breathe." (Earlier this month he wrongly blamed global warming for his daughter's asthma despite his old smoking habit.) To commemorate Earth Day, Obama will visit the Florida Everglades, which he called "one of the most special places in our country." He added, "But it's also one of the most fragile. Rising sea levels are putting a national treasure — and an economic engine for the South Florida tourism industry — at risk. So climate change can no longer be denied — or ignored." After all, there's still government power to gain.
A group of protesters at Valdosta State University had cast the American flag on the ground and were walking all over it when Michelle Manhart snatched it away from them. "It was tattered and torn, covered with mud and dirt," the former Air Force training instructor said. "I told the demonstrators that it needed to be properly disposed of." Instead, campus police led her away in handcuffs when she didn't let Old Glory go after they ordered her to. It's a situation that has kindled anew discussions over the flag code, free speech and ... pornography.
See, this isn't the first time Manhart has created controversy. In 2007, she was demoted in the Air Force after she posed nude in Playboy Magazine. "This staff sergeant's alleged action does not meet the high standards we expect of our airmen, nor does it comply with the Air Force's core values of integrity, service before self, and excellence in all we do," the Air Force said in a statement at the time. According to an Air Force Times cover story, Manhart wanted to use her Playboy notoriety to launch a modeling career, and she later used the flag to cover herself in a nude photo-shoot for PETA — itself a disrespectful use of the flag, in our estimation. Yet even if she wasn't the best messenger, Manhart's intent in the Valdosta incident was honorable and any veteran who sacrificed so much to defend the flag would agree.
A major shift could be taking place in ObamaCare this June, and Republicans stand to gain big, but only if they are sure-footed. June is when the Supreme Court will announce its decision in King v. Burwell, the case regarding whether the federal government overstepped its authority in paying out subsidies to those purchasing health insurance on the federal ObamaCare exchange. But Republicans face the unpleasant specter of a legal win and a political loss.
As ObamaCare is written, each state had the option to set up its own exchange through which people would buy health insurance. These exchanges were theoretically supposed to offer cheaper coverage, though we know how that went — costs went up and continue to do so. Just the same, 36 states opted not to create their own exchanges, forcing the creation and implementation of a federal ObamaCare exchange to take up the slack. And since Barack Obama needed to keep the law afloat, he arbitrarily decided that taxpayer subsidies could be paid out through the federal exchange, too.
If the Supreme Court interprets the law literally, then the federal taxpayer subsidies will be wiped out. It’s plainly written in the law: no state-run exchange, no taxpayer subsidy for insurance. The immediate outcome will be that some 7.5 million people could lose their insurance. But not if Republicans act.
Sen. Orrin Hatch (R-UT) and Rep. Paul Ryan (R-WI) have proposed alternative plans to protect low-income people currently on the federal exchange. Tax credits would allow people to buy insurance in the private market and across state lines, something ObamaCare subsidies do not allow.
Naturally, Hatch and Ryan stand accused of creating “ObamaCare Lite,” but Ryan counters that their plans would “empower Americans to make their own health care decisions rather than government mandates.”
Republicans face a tricky situation in dealing with ObamaCare subsidies. The Supreme Court ruling, if it goes their way, offers the best opportunity yet to gut ObamaCare. Without the subsidy as it currently exists, the law could collapse. However, subsidies are popular — everybody loves "free" stuff. The American public still hates ObamaCare, but a number of polls indicate people are comfortable with taxpayer subsidies to help pay for insurance. If Republicans don’t offer a viable alternative to replacing the subsidies, the political backlash will be costly.
And that's just what Democrats are counting on. The Obama administration and congressional Democrats have been mum about how to handle an adverse Supreme Court decision. Obama has merely said that the way to fix the problem lies with Congress. He would love nothing better than to see Republicans twist in the wind, knowing full well there is still a sizable portion of the GOP that will settle for nothing less than the complete repeal of ObamaCare. He can then blame Republicans if millions of people go uninsured.
The full repeal of ObamaCare should be the final goal, but it cannot be done in one fell swoop. And it will never be done if Republicans cannot coalesce around a plan to replace it. That can start now by developing a regime that still allows low-income people to afford insurance. Then, Republicans can put the onus on Obama, forcing the famously uncooperative president to go along with continuing subsidies that have a free-market flavor, or veto the GOP plan out of spite and force millions to lose their insurance.
Of course, this is all academic if Obama issues another arbitrary executive order that “fixes” the language of ObamaCare to allow federal subsidies. The Supreme Court could also lose its nerve and allow the subsidies to stand. Yet the justices might be less likely to do that if they know an alternative plan is in the works to keep millions from going uninsured.
Either way, the GOP should heed the advice of The Wall Street Journal: “Republicans would be wise to recall how Democrats built the entitlement state decade by decade. ... Republicans will need liberal-like perseverance to reduce federal dominance over health care as well as an alternative vision that can appeal to voters.” Then again, intelligent strategy never was the GOP's strong suit.
OPINION IN BRIEF
Columnist Dennis Prager: "In 2013, of America's 6,261 black homicide victims, more than 6,000 of them — 97 percent — were killed by people other than police. About three percent of black homicide victims were killed by police. And of that three percent, nearly every one was armed and dangerous. To label that an epidemic of police racism is a libel. In addition, more than 9 in 10 blacks murdered were murdered by another black person. Now that is an epidemic — an epidemic of black murderers. ... The left is not only engaging in demagoguery and creating hysteria when it claims that 'Blacks Lives Matter' in reference to police killings of blacks. It is also not telling the truth. Black lives don't really interest the left. If they did, the left would focus on all the black murderers taking black lives. The left's overriding interest lies elsewhere: in defaming America, with its 'legacy of slavery,' 'institutional racism' and 'white privilege,' and in depicting white police as racists. To understand the left one must first understand that it hates conservatives more than it loves almost anything. Because if it really believed that 'Black Lives Matter,' its message would be 'Black Murderers Matter.'"
Insight: "The human race divides itself politically into those who want to be controlled, and those who have no such desire." —American writer Robert A. Heinlein (1907-1988)
The BIG Lie: "2014 was the planet's warmest year on record. Fourteen of the 15 hottest years on record have all fallen in the first 15 years of this century. This winter was cold in parts of our country — as some folks in Congress like to point out — but around the world, it was the warmest ever recorded." —Barack Obama (Last year was not the warmest on record based on the most objective evidence, nor have almost all of the warmest years in recorded history occurred since the turn of the century.)
Demo-gogues: "I have to say that there are times where the dysfunction in the Senate just goes too far. This is an example of it. It's gone too far. Enough. Enough. Call Loretta Lynch for a vote, get her confirmed. Put her in place. Let her do her job. This is embarrassing, a process like this." —Barack Obama (Translation: I've got more insidious work to accomplish before 2017, and it sure would help if I had Eric Holder 2.0.)
Non Compos Mentis: "I want to be sure that we get small businesses starting and growing in America again. We have stalled out. I was very surprised to see that when I began to dig into it. Because people were telling me this as I traveled around the country the last two years, but I didn't know what they were saying and it turns out that we are not producing as many small businesses as we use to." —Hillary Clinton, who's suddenly concerned about the disaster known as the Obama Recovery
Applied science: "Scientists say they're now several steps closer to being able to resurrect extinct species. Might want to start with the Founding Fathers, before it's too late." —Fred Thompson
Semper Vigilans Fortis Paratus et Fidelis!
Managing Editor Nate Jackson
Join us in daily prayer for our Patriots in uniform — Soldiers, Sailors, Airmen, Marines and Coast Guardsmen — standing in harm's way in defense of Liberty, and for their families.
Chaos in the Primaries
4/21/2015 12:01:00 AM - Thomas Sowell
Painful as it is to realize that both the Democrats and the Republicans will still be holding their primaries a year from now, that is one of the high prices we pay for democracy.
Seldom does the initial "front-runner" in either party's primaries end up being the actual candidate when election day rolls around. However, even if we cannot predict the outcomes of the primaries this far in advance, we can at least start trying to understand the candidates, the almost candidates and the people who are running just for the publicity.
One of the curious things this early in the process is that, while the Republicans' three freshmen Senators -- Marco Rubio, Ted Cruz and Rand Paul -- have all had interviews on various television talk shows, veteran politician Hillary Clinton has been hiding out from real interviews by hard news reporters, as if she is afraid to be cross-examined.
This is by no means an irrational fear on Mrs. Clinton's part. There are all sorts of questions that she would find hard to answer. They range from questions about recent events like the e-mails from her days as Secretary of State that she destroyed illegally, after Congress called for her to produce them, to the still unsolved mystery as to what she and Barack Obama were doing during the hours when four Americans, including our ambassador to Libya, were under attack by terrorists in Benghazi.
Then there are the bald-faced lies, such as Mrs. Clinton's claim to have been shot at in a war zone, her claim that she and her husband were "poor" at the end of his terms as president, and her claim that charges of sexual misconduct against Bill Clinton in the White House were fictions invented by a "vast right-wing conspiracy."
Supporters of Hillary Clinton tout her "experience" in high-level institutions of government -- as first lady in the White House, as a Senator and as Secretary of State. But years of such "experience" raise the embarrassing question as to whether she ever actually accomplished anything in all those years, other than being physically present.
Among the many Republicans' announced and unannounced candidates, three of the most prominent are freshmen Senators with no tangible accomplishments to go with their rhetoric. Whatever their potential, which seems especially striking in the case of Senator Marco Rubio, the White House is not the place for on-the-job training, in an age of international terrorism and nuclear bombs.
Barack Obama has already given us repeated demonstrations of what a mess a freshman Senator with rhetoric can make in the White House.
While there are a number of Republican candidates who can point to substantial accomplishments as governors, the fact that most have strong track records as conservatives means that they may well split the conservative vote so many ways in the primaries as to let the nomination go by default to a mushy moderate -- of the sort beloved by the Republican establishment, but not by enough voters to beat even a weak or troubled Democrat on election day.
Former Florida Governor Jeb Bush is today's mushy moderate candidate who may well follow in the footsteps of a whole string of similar losers, from Mitt Romney and John McCain in recent elections, all the way back to Thomas E. Dewey, who managed to lose even in an election where three different Democrats were on the ballot, fragmenting that party's vote.
While the Republicans have several governors who would make good presidents, of whom Scott Walker and Bobby Jindal are the most prominent, that is very different from saying that these governors would make successful presidential candidates. How they handle themselves in the primaries can reveal that.
Former Governor Jeb Bush has lots of political savvy on his side -- his own savvy and that of others -- and a ton of money behind him. So he could end up being the last man standing after the many Republican conservatives knock each other off.
What could prevent that would be if each of the successive conservative Republican candidates who fall behind were to throw their support to whoever becomes the conservative candidate with the best chance of rescuing us all from another Clinton versus Bush election.
But we should never bet heavily on rationality prevailing in politics.
Candidates Should Read The Republican Platform
4/21/2015 12:01:00 AM - Phyllis Schlafly
Nineteen of the about two dozen people who may seek the Republican presidential nomination trooped to Nashua, New Hampshire, last weekend hoping to impress that state's primary voters and activists. The candidates rehearsed Republican talking points about lower taxes, smaller government and a strong foreign policy, but they had nothing to say about the impending Supreme Court decision that threatens to redefine marriage and undermine the family as we have always known it.
That gap in presidential stump speeches is filled by an important brief just filed in the Supreme Court by members of the Republican Party's committee on resolutions, which writes the official platform containing the party's fundamental beliefs, goals and objectives. The brief notes that the Republican platform has frequently stressed the central importance of the traditional family based on a married husband and wife, because that is the only way to achieve a self-reliant, self-supporting economic unit that minimizes the need for a welfare state.
For example, recent platforms have stated that "Republicans recognize the importance of having a father and a mother in the home" (2000); "Families -- not government programs -- are the best way to make sure our children are properly nurtured" (1976); a loss of the traditional family produces consequences that "not only lead to more government costs, but also to more government control over the lives of its citizens in all aspects" (2012); "fracturing the family into isolated individuals (leaves) each of them dependent upon -- and helpless before -- government" (1992).
The first Republican platform after Roe v. Wade, in 1976, denounced that pro-abortion, anti-family decision. The first Republican platform after Lyndon Johnson's Great Society, in 1968, denounced the then-new practice of providing welfare benefits to unmarried mothers because it "erodes self-respect and discourages family unity and responsibility."
And the very first Republican platform of all, in 1856, affirmed traditional marriage by declaring it the "duty of Congress to prohibit in the Territories those twin relics of barbarism -- Polygamy, and Slavery."
More recently, every Republican Party platform since 1996 has opposed the legal recognition of same-sex unions at any level of government, both state and federal. The necessity of providing legal privileges for husband-wife unions was reaffirmed in the platforms of 2000, 2004, 2008 and 2012, and in 2013 by a special resolution declaring that marriage is a "relationship that only a man and a woman can form."
The hesitance of presidential candidates to address this critical issue is puzzling, if for no other reason than that the people who write and approve the party platform are the same delegates who will nominate the candidates for president and vice president. A presidential candidate who wants to be seen as a strong and effective leader, tough enough to defeat both Hillary Clinton and the Islamic State (or ISIS), should not avoid criticism of the prospect that five unelected judges may redefine a fundamental relationship that is much older than our Constitution.
Remember that the first Republican president, Abraham Lincoln, won the Republican nomination, and then the presidency, primarily on the basis of his compelling refutation of the Supreme Court's Dred Scott decision, and on his public commitment not to enforce that sweeping decision beyond the individual parties to that tragic case. After his election, Lincoln stood by that promise.
Like Andrew Jackson before him, Lincoln insisted that Congress and the president were co-equal branches of government with the duty to interpret the Constitution within their own spheres of divided power. Alexander Hamilton promised in the Federalist Papers (No. 78) that the judiciary was the "least dangerous" branch of the federal government because it "must ultimately depend upon the aid of the executive arm even for the efficacy of its judgments."
In the last presidential cycle, Newt Gingrich won the pivotal South Carolina primary after declaring that he would reject a Supreme Court ruling that extended legal rights to enemy combatants held at Guantanamo. Newt had already issued an excellent 54-page position paper titled "Bringing the Courts Back Under the Constitution."
Unfortunately, the Republican "donor class" and the high-priced consultants who led the party down to defeat in the last two presidential elections are back again with the same losing advice to avoid what former Indiana Gov. Mitch Daniels called "the so-called social issues." What those big donors and strategists don't seem to realize is that Republican fiscal policies (lower taxes and balanced budgets) can happen only if we honor the traditional family, founded on the marriage of husband and wife, as the indispensable foundation of a free society.
We're looking for a presidential candidate to say that the way to give us the limited government, lower taxes and balanced budgets we all seek is to restore the legal system that protects traditional marriage so that families are self-supporting, not dependent on government handouts.
Black Murderers Matter
4/21/2015 12:01:00 AM - Dennis Prager
The "Black Lives Matter" campaign is based on as big a lie as the "campus rape culture" lie; the Rolling Stone magazine gang rape at the University of Virginia fraternity lie; the gang rape by the Duke University lacrosse team lie; the "Hands Up, Don't Shoot" Ferguson lie; and all the other lies that animate leftist hysterias.
Building hysterias based on falsehoods is a primary modus operandi on the left. One can even say that without hysteria there is no left. First a lie or exaggeration is manufactured. Then it is repeated over and over by the mainstream media and myriad left-wing groups; academics hold conferences and write thoughtful-sounding op-ed pieces about the fake issue; meanwhile activists on its behalf demonstrate, taking over public buildings and highways, sometimes violently.
The latest left-wing hysteria is "Black Lives Matter" -- based on the lie that black lives don't matter because white police kill blacks wantonly.
Two weeks ago the cover of Time featured the words "Black Lives Matter" in stark white letters on a black background. The cover also featured photos of what appears to be the morally inexcusable fatal police shooting of Walter Scott, a black man, as he ran away from a routine police stop. Credit the left with never giving up. In North Charleston, South Carolina, the left finally found its seemingly perfect example of a wholly unjustified police killing of a black man. Hence the Time cover, "Black Lives Matter."
The problem with the mantra and the hysteria is not that no blacks are ever killed unjustifiably by police. The problem is that it is so rare as to constitute a libel.
In 2013, of America's 6,261 black homicide victims, more than 6,000 of them -- 97 percent -- were killed by people other than police. About three percent of black homicide victims were killed by police. And of that three percent, nearly every one was armed and dangerous. To label that an epidemic of police racism is a libel.
In addition, more than 9 in 10 blacks murdered were murdered by another black person. Now that is an epidemic -- an epidemic of black murderers. (In response, it is pointed out that about 83 percent of whites are murdered by whites. But there is no equivalency here. Blacks murder at eight times the rate of whites -- 34.4 per 100,000 versus 4.5 per 100,000.)
In the eyes of Americans who value truth, the black and white leftists who blamed the Ferguson, Missouri, police officer for Michael Brown's death, despite knowing absolutely nothing about what happened, look like demagogues now that the truth has come out. That's why so many police officers turned their backs on New York City's left-wing Mayor Bill de Blasio when he attended the funerals of the two New York City policemen murdered by a black man angry about Ferguson and the Staten Island death of Eric Garner, another black man who died at the hands of police who, as in Ferguson, were not indicted. They were repulsed by de Blasio's generalizations about police routinely killing black men with no justification.
So here is a truth. The left is not only engaging in demagoguery and creating hysteria when it claims that "Blacks Lives Matter" in reference to police killings of blacks. It is also not telling the truth. Black lives don't really interest the left. If they did, the left would focus on all the black murderers taking black lives.
The left's overriding interest lies elsewhere: in defaming America, with its "legacy of slavery," "institutional racism" and "white privilege," and in depicting white police as racists. To understand the left one must first understand that it hates conservatives more than it loves almost anything.
Because if it really believed that "Black Lives Matter," its message would be "Black Murderers Matter."
NARAL Colorado Not Fans of Bill That Would Criminalize the Murder of a Fetus
4/20/2015 5:26:00 PM - Christine Rousselle
The nation was stunned by the vicious assault on Michelle Wilkins, a 26-year-old woman in Colorado whose unborn child was ripped from her womb while she answered a Craigslist ad for baby clothes. Even though her unborn child was killed in the attack, the attacker, Dynel Lane, would not face murder charges as it was uncertain whether or not the infant was alive outside of the womb. People were furious with this development, and a YouGov poll showed that vast majorities of people say that they feel the attack should have been classified as a murder. Colorado's legislature is considering the "Crimes Against Pregnant Women Act," which would allow for murder charges to be filed in a case like the attack on Wilkins.
Apparently the people of NARAL Colorado are not among the 76 percent who think that the attack was more than an assault. Earlier today, they tweeted this:
Call me crazy, but I'm not seeing how this is exactly a bad thing. Even trying to see the bill from the point of view held by NARAL's employees, I'm at a loss as to how someone could be against a murder charge for someone who literally ripped open a woman's body to extract her baby during an assault. This isn't even close to the same thing as a woman going in for an abortion--this was an assault that resulted in the death of a person.
NARAL Colorado followed up their tweet with this one, which didn't do much to explain their point of view:
Again, this simply isn't true. Wilkins' infant was seven months along, and had the baby been born in a hospital instead of in a bathtub following a botched Cesarian section, he would probably still be alive today. Despite this life that was snuffed out, Lane won't be charged with murder because Colorado law won't allow this. That's absurd.
It's also interesting that NARAL chose to use the term "mother" in their first tweet. What, pray tell, is the woman a mother of if (in NARAL's view) they are not a person until they are born?
Does Tehran Mean What It Says? Oh, Yes
4/20/2015 12:01:00 AM - Jeff Jacoby
Who trusts Iran? Most Americans don't. According to two new polls, a majority of the public strongly doubts that the ruling theocrats in Tehran can be counted on to keep their end of any nuclear deal negotiated in the US-led "P5+1" talks in Lausanne, Switzerland.
Asked in a Fox News poll how much of Iran's claims on nuclear matters can be trusted, 55 percent of respondents replied that the United States "can't trust anything" the regime says, while 28 percent were willing to trust only "a little." Similarly, a survey by NBC News found that 68 percent of Americans consider Iran unlikely to abide by any nuclear agreement.
Nothing unusual there. Given Iran's long history of deceit, it would be strange if Americans and their alliesdidn't regard as worthless any nuclear promises the mullahs make.
Iran was an early signatory to the Nuclear Nonproliferation Treaty in 1970 and it signed a detailed safeguards agreement with the International Atomic Energy Agency in 1974. But after the Ayatollah Khomeini and his followers seized power in 1979, Iran began lying about its nuclear activities. Virtually everything we know about Iran's nuclear program was uncovered only after years of stonewalling, concealment, and outright denial. The construction of a vast uranium enrichment installation near Natanz and a heavy-water reactor in Arak, for example, didn't come to light until 2002, when an Iranian exile group exposed their existence in a press conference in Washington.
Iran has repeatedly flouted UN Security Council resolutions ordering it to suspend all enrichment-related activities. Even now, reports the IAEA, Tehran refuses to answer questions about the "possible military dimensions" of its nuclear activities.
With such a track record, it stands to reason that Iran's commitments are so widely regarded as worthless. No piece of paper signed in Switzerland will take the ayatollahs' eyes off the nuclear prize they have pursued, by means mostly foul, for so long. And of what value is any agreement if one of the signatories can't be trusted not to cheat?
Yet what makes the framework nuclear deal so grotesque and dangerous isn't Iran's trail of deception. The real reason to block any nuclear accord with Tehran's rulers isn't that they always lie. It's that they don't.
Maybe Iran would cheat on the loophole-ridden deal being promoted the Obama administration. But it wouldn't have to. Even President Obama admits that Iran could abide by the terms agreed to and wait for them to run out in a little more than a decade. "At that point, the breakout times [to nuclear weapons capability] would have shrunk almost down to zero," the president told NPR. Cheat or don't cheat, the end is the same: The Lausanne deal paves Iran's path to the bomb either way.
And then it will be clear — apocalyptically clear — that the ayatollahs were telling the truth.
They were telling the truth last November, when the Iranian Revolutionary Guards proclaimed that "the US is still the great Satan and the number one enemy of the [Islamic] revolution and the Islamic Republic."
They were telling the truth in February, when Ali Shirazi, a senior Iranian cleric and aide to Ayatollah Ali Khamenei, declared that his troops are in a global war that will one day bring "the banner of Islam over the White House."
They were telling the truth a decade ago when Hassan Abassi, a high-ranking intelligence operative, warnedthat Iranian agents had identified "29 sensitive sites in the West, with the aim of bombing them. . . . Our intention is that 6,000 nuclear warheads will explode" as part of a "strategy . . . for the destruction of Anglo-Saxon civilization."
They were telling the truth when a commander of Iranian forcesinsisted that "America has no other choice but to leave the Middle East region beaten and humiliated." And when Iran's supreme leaderraged that "there is only one solution to the Middle East problem, namely the annihilation and destruction of the Jewish state." And when Mahmoud Ahmadinejad asserted that "a world without America is not only desirable, it is achievable."
And when, over and over and over, they have incited crowds in chants of "Death to America."
Tehran's rulers may have lied for years about their nuclear activities; their negotiated commitments to suspend enrichment and submit to inspections may not be worth the ink they sign them with.
But the mullahs don't lie about what matters to them most: death to America, the extermination of Israel, unrelenting global jiihad. They say they are deadly serious.
Which Presidential Candidates Will Support a White House Council on Boys and Men?
4/20/2015 12:01:00 AM - Rachel Alexander
There used to be a stigma in recent years toward forming male-only organizations, due to the perception they were sexist; excluding women for the benefit of men. But as boys and men are increasingly failing in so many areas - crime, violence, and education to name a few - that perception is changing. There is a real need for organizations that can reverse this trend and prevent men from turning to destructive lifestyles. The purpose of men’s interest groups is evolving; it isn’t to help men excel over women, it’s merely to stop the spiraling path downward so many are now taking, to the detriment of everyone in society.
Dr. Warren Farrell, who has served on the board of NOW in New York City and writes books about men’s and women’s issues, believes one solution that could help with this crisis is a White House Council on Boys and Men. Initially asked to serve on the board of the White House Council on Women and Girls when it was formed in 2009, he questioned why there was no equivalent council for males. He put together a coalition of 34 people from varying walks of life and political views to draft a proposal for the White House. The group included prominent Democrats like Jennifer Granholm, who is a former governor of Michigan and co-chair of a Super PAC for Obama, and women’s organizations like Leading Women for Shared Parenting. Sadly, Obama blew it off at the last minute.
Undaunted, the coalition is headed to Iowa this week to discuss the proposal with presidential candidates. It is an idea whose time is overdue, and something the conservative, family-oriented voters of Iowa will want to see as part of a candidate’s platform. Even Hillary Clinton may embrace the concept; since she already has the feminist vote wrapped up, this could help her make inroads with male voters.
I asked Dr. Farrell if the left’s interest in transgender, fluid gender, etc., might dissuade Clinton and Democrats from accepting a council for males. He didn’t think so, explaining that it doesn’t matter what kind of boy or man - every color, every class, every point in history and every place in geography - we’re talking about, there is something that has happened to them in recent years that has hurt them. Throughout all of history, girls became women who raised children, and boys became men who raised money or killed animals and enemies. In every culture that survived, boys became heroes by being disposable. After World War II ended in industrialized countries, survival was no longer such a dominant force, and divorces became an option. The women’s movement gave women a sense of purpose beyond just raising children; they could also raise money and have careers.
But no one gave men a purpose beyond raising money. Today, males have lost their purpose, because fewer are needed to die in wars and being the sole breadwinner no longer constitutes the definition of masculinity.
Forming a council for boys and men would also help women - the mothers, grandmothers, sisters, spouses and children of men and boys. It is not a zero-sum game. Women, wouldn’t it be nice to have a pool of men to select from who have manners, good values and are trustworthy, rather than neglected and raised by TV?
Solving the problems plaguing males comes down to strengthening the family. Dr. Farrell discovered some intriguing information about fathers and their role in families, chronicled in his book, Father and Child Reunion. Children do better in over 30 different areas when they have both a mother and a father in the home. In fact, children do better with a stay-at-home dad than with a stay-at-home mom. But the point is not to promote the value of one gender over another, rather to treat them equally. Right now, the pendulum has swung so far in favor of girls and women that it is having a detrimental effect on boys and men. Even if you deny that men and women are different mentally and emotionally, they have hormonal and physical differences that disparately affect their development, interactions and abilities.
While some fiscal-minded conservatives may shy away from the concept of creating another government bureaucracy, the council would consist mainly of unpaid volunteers and experts. In fact, Dr. Farrell says that “the single, best way to reduce the size of government is to build up the strength of the family.” The council would not implement heavy-handed rules and regulations, but exist to publicize the crisis taking place with boys. Since there is already an equivalent council for girls and women, its formation would merely balance this out in the interests of fairness. Additionally, there would be women serving on the council, not just men.
Which presidential candidates will recognize the importance of this effort? The candidates who value the family the most. With broad, bipartisan support backing the proposal, there is no reason why every candidate in the race cannot stand for fairness.
Time to Stand Against Evil
4/20/2015 12:01:00 AM - Terry Paulson
Last week, people from around the world stood in solidarity with the Jewish people on Yom HaShoah. Holocaust Remembrance Day is a solemn and sacred day of remembrance for the six million Jewish men, women, and children who perished in the Holocaust.
Watching the Obama administration feverously try to sell the Iranian Nuclear agreement brings back frightening comparisons to Neville Chamberlain’s overly optimistic defense of Adolph Hitler’s intentions before all hell broke loose in Europe. The Iranian leaders’ open threats of death to Israel and America are portrayed as internal posturing, while the criticism of the deal by Israel and Congress are portrayed as unrealistic and unconstructive. But Iran’s support for terrorism around the Middle East, their past broken agreements and thwarted inspections, and their lack of religious freedom fosters more concerns than confidence.
As horrendous as the Nazi’s final solution to exterminate the Jews was, they never invited the world media to cover their atrocities. It was only after World War II that the world was confronted with the unseen horrors and mass killings.
The Islamic evil that we face can’t be ignored. Rogue Islamic regimes promote an Islamic caliphate and promise to wipe Israel, our best regional ally, from the face of the earth. They support Islamic terrorists who don’t hide their atrocities from the media, but eagerly broadcast their killings.
In Garissa, Kenya, a small group of Al-Shabab terrorists broke into dorms and a Christian prayer service at Garissa University killing 147 and wounding many more. In a March bombing in Lahore, Pakistan, fourteen Christians were killed and seventy wounded. Before that, ISIS beheaded twenty Egyptian Christians and broadcast it to the world. Around the Middle East and in Africa, it appears to be open season on Christians and Jews.
On a trip to Israel in 2005, our group met with Josh Reinstein, the Director of the Knesset Christian Allies Caucus. Realizing the need for Christian support for Israel, Reinstein warned that with growing Islamic populations, Europe was already lost. Only the US, Canada and Australia had the foundational Judeo-Christian values that must lead them to stand against the coming Islamic caliphate.
American Christians have been a comfortable majority. They haven’t had to defend their faith or to face any real persecution. Now, the dire plight of their brothers and sisters in faith around the world seems hard to believe. Are we called to do more than pray?
Elie Wiesel, in his 1986 Nobel Peace Prize Acceptance Speech, reminded the world, "We must always take sides. Neutrality helps the oppressor, never the victim. Silence encourages the tormentor, never the tormented."
Are we to be lamb or lion? During the exodus journey, the prophet Balaam declared that the forces of the Lord’s people were as irresistible as a mighty lion or lioness. Isaiah talked of a time when Israel’s lion-like God will come to fight for his people and Jerusalem in prevailing over their enemies. Micah saw a time when “survivors from Jacob will live among the nations, in the midst of many peoples. They will be like a lion among the animals of the forest, like a young lion among the flocks of sheep, which attacks when it passes through; it rips its prey and there is no one to stop it. Lift your hand triumphantly against your adversaries; may all your enemies be destroyed!”
Jesus admitted that wars would continue. St. Augustine and Aquinas posed the just war theory and the need to stand against evil.
Yes, Christians are called to love our enemies, to pray for them, to witness to the grace of God. But where is the just war support to face our generation’s genocidal threat? What if the world had not come together to defeat Hitler?
Ever since God came down from Mt. Sinai and put up a Stop sign to man’s sin, the Judeo-Christian faiths have been hated. In ancient times, our brothers and sisters in Christ faced gladiators and lions in the amphitheater because of their faith. What does it mean to take a stand against evil in our time?
Hillary: It’s Not the Pantsuit, It’s the Purse
4/20/2015 12:01:00 AM - Gretchen Hamel
There are two distinct and obvious differences between Hillary and her opponents: she is a woman and a Clinton. With her return to the campaign spotlight, these have been the primary focuses of the media coverage, her critics, and conversations amongst women across the nation.
Yes, she is a woman, and that can play in her favor. Like many women, I would like to see a woman become President of the United States. I also think it’s due. Yet, I do not think that woman is Hillary Clinton—and I’m not the only one.
Why? Bottom line, in my opinion Hillary is not a true champion of women. She does not make the advancements for women that many claim she does. Being a female and occupying the office isn’t enough. It’s the path, the experiences, and the trials experienced while staying true to oneself and one's gender.
First off though, let’s give Hillary some credit. She stood by her man (for better or worse), she had the gumption to demand an office in the West Wing, had a bold, yet wrong, policy initiative as First Lady, and she forged her own political career path.
But that’s where I have the issue; she did all these on the coat tales of her husband. Give her credit for leveraging the opportunity, and yes, she had her own achievements beforehand. However, she hasn’t been authentic. Even the Senate seat she occupied wasn’t her own home state. It was a just a state with an open seat.
That lack of authenticity is also missing as she represents women. While she may be the leader of the Sisterhood of the Traveling Pantsuit, it’s that pantsuit that does nothing for gender equality. Hillary was the trailblazer of women conforming to a man’s world. Some would argue that’s what she had to do, but I disagree. It’s not only her lack of hemlines and other feminine attributes, but also the policies she had for her office while in the Senate. While in the Senate, Hillary paid women on average 28 percent less than men. She was paying them 72 cents on the dollar, which averaged out to being nearly $16,000 less a year. She had a prime opportunity to change the culture on how women are viewed and paid in the Senate, and she blew it.
While picking up dry cleaning this week in a North Texas town close to where I live, Hillary came up. There was excitement among this group of women. And it was for the fact that Hillary was a Clinton, not because she was a woman.
To these women, it’s not a coronation or a return to the past. To them it’s a return to what worked. As one put it, “All I know is that we had money in the bank and were able to pay our bills (in the nineties).”
These women believed a Hillary presidency could lead to a return of what worked for them personally. They cited the strong economy where they themselves and their families and friends benefited. They went on to describe a time where Republicans and Democrats worked together and had a budget surplus. Let’s also not forget the major reforms made to our welfare system. Yes, there were tax hikes, but when asked, these women shrugged it off. They didn’t mind paying more when they were making more and the government was actually working.
What these women remember about the Clinton presidency is something many in the Beltway and on the campaign trail are missing. Politics is personal. Right or wrong, to these voting women, they currently see a government that is not working and remember a government that did work in the Nineties. It’s not about a third Obama term. It’s about a third Clinton term and woman who has experience governing. This isn’t looking back with rose-colored glasses; this is looking back at a bank account in the black. Forget the pantsuit. It’s the purse.
Boys Want Father Figures, SEALs Deliver
4/19/2015 12:01:00 AM - Katie Kieffer
Not every boy wants a pony, a truck or a puppy; but every boy wants and needs a father figure in his life. When a young boy loses his father during military service, the loss can be crushing. Had his father not volunteered to be one of the 1% of Americans who serve in uniform, he could have grown up with a male role model by his side to set an example of courage and to celebrate his achievements.
Let me tell you the story of Operation 300, a non-profit organization that helps children cope with the loss of a father and continues the legacy of the late SEAL Team 6 member and father of two, Aaron C. Vaughn.
Operation 300 helps boys and girls between the ages of six and 17 who have lost their father during military service. Young people are paired with father-figure mentors—many of whom have military backgrounds—and then participate in outdoor camps. At the camps, young people learn valuable skills such as building a fire, fishing, archery, sailing, horseback riding, shooting firearms and putting up a tent.
While the children enjoy the great outdoors with their father figures, their mothers—military widows—bond with and support each other in their common loss. When the camp is over, young people are encouraged to continue their relationship with their father figure mentor.
Background: 22 SEALs Die in Chopper Crash:
On August 6, 2011, twenty-two SEALs were asked to respond to a firefight with the Taliban in a valley of Afghanistan on a chopper that was not built for night raids. As their chopper entered the firefight, the SEALS were banned by politically correct U.S. rules of engagement from using preassault fire because of concerns that it “damages our [the administration’s] efforts to win the hearts and minds of our enemy.”
In large part because of President Obama’s rules of engagement, the Taliban gunned down the chopper and thirty Americans died. Twenty-two of the thirty Americans were assigned to the SEALs and included members of SEAL Team 6. Active-duty SEALS represent less than 1 percent (00.17 percent) of the total active-duty military. Losing twenty-two SEALs was a big, big loss. Aaron C. Vaughn was one of the SEAL Team 6 members who died that day.
“The day Aaron’s life ended, our life began,” is a sentiment often expressed by Vaughn’s parents Karen and Billy Vaughn and his sister Tara Vaughn Baldwin. As Tara states on Operation300.com, “we had a strong desire to somehow add value to our great loss. …[Aaron] was always up for an adventure and lived everyday to the fullest. His love for God, family and country was unparalleled. He truly had the heart of a warrior. It is only fitting that to honor him, we give kids who have lost so much the opportunity to live like Aaron… if only for a short time.”
22 SEALs did not need to die on that fatal day in 2011. They went into a firefight and obeyed rules of engagement knowing there was little chance they would come out alive. They are bigger heroes for giving up their lives willingly. But how many more warriors need to die before President Obama and his coadjutors will reform our politically correct rules of engagement?
The courage of SEAL warriors like Aaron Vaughn continues through Operation 300. Young people who have lost fathers during military service should apply to participate in one of their upcoming all-expense-paid outdoor camps. And, if you are interested in supporting Operation 300’s mission with your time, supplies or monetary aide, please check out their Dream Fund site to learn more.
Gay Marriage’ Rooted in Fraud, Child Rape
4/19/2015 12:01:00 AM - Matt Barber
The very notion of “gay marriage” is an artificial construct. It’s the aberrant byproduct of the sexual revolution, which, itself, was largely instigated by bug doctor turned “sexologist,” Alfred Kinsey.
Though married to a woman who took part in his many filmed “scientific” orgies, Kinsey was a promiscuous homosexual and sadomasochist. He managed to completely upend and twist the world’s perception of human sexuality in the 1950s and ’60s with his world famous “Kinsey Reports.”
While his “research” has been universally discredited and exposed as fraudulent, ideologically motivated and even criminal, it remains, nonetheless, the primary source behind today’s “sexual orientation science.”
For this reason, and many others, the novel notion of “gay marriage” sits atop a house of cards.
On April 28, the U.S. Supreme Court will hear oral arguments on whether to attempt, once and for all, the deconstruction and redefinition of the institution of marriage. The court will then hand down a decision by the end of June. In anticipation of this landmark case, civil rights law firm Liberty Counsel has submitted to the Supreme Court a friend of the court brief that reveals the criminally fraudulent foundation upon which the “marriage equality” Tower of Babel has been raised.
Among other things, the brief features the findings of Dr. Judith Reisman, the foremost expert on Kinsey’s pseudo-scientific cultural activism. Reisman has served as scientific consultant to four U.S. Department of Justice administrations, the U.S. Department of Education and the U.S. Department of Health and Human Services (HHS). She is a visiting professor of law at Liberty University School of Law and works hand-in-hand with Liberty Counsel.
As the brief reveals, most people are completely unaware that during his tenure at Indiana University, Kinsey facilitated, with stopwatches and ledgers, the systematic sexual abuse of hundreds, if not thousands, of children and infants – all in the name of science.
Kinsey asserted that children are “sexual from birth.” He further concluded, based upon experiments he directed and documented in his infamous Table 34, that adult-child sex is harmless, even beneficial, and described child “orgasm” as “culminating in extreme trembling, collapse, loss of color, and sometimes fainting. …” Many children suffered “excruciating pain,” he observed, “and [would] scream if movement [was] continued.” Some “[would] fight away from the [adult] partner and may make violent attempts to avoid climax, although they derive[d] definite pleasure from the situation.”
It’s little wonder that Dr. Reisman identifies Kinsey as a “sexual psychopath.” These children were as young as 2 months old.
Kinsey’s research also determined that rape doesn’t really hurt women. In his 1953 volume “Sexual Behavior in the Human Female” at page 122, Kinsey wrote, “Among the 4,441 females [reporting rape] on whom we have data, there was only one clear cut case of injury … and very few instances of vaginal bleeding, which however, did not appear to do any appreciable damage.”
Kinsey claimed that, like himself, over 30 percent of men are homosexual (today’s legitimate research has established this figure to actually fall somewhere between 1-3 percent). There can be no doubt that, if he were alive today, Alfred Kinsey would be one of the loudest voices clamoring for the redefinition of marriage.
“For the past 67 years, scholars, lawyers and judges have undertaken fundamental societal transformation by embracing Alfred Kinsey’s statistically and scientifically fraudulent ‘data’ derived from serial child rapists, sex offenders, prisoners, prostitutes, pedophiles and pederasts,” notes the brief. “Now these same change agents, still covering up the fraudulent nature of the Kinsey ‘data,’ want this Court to utilize it to demolish the cornerstone of society, natural marriage.”
“Changing millennia of history must always be approached with trepidation,” the brief continues. “In this case, the change must be rejected outright not only because it is seeking to redefine something which cannot be redefined, but also because the proposed change is grounded in fraudulent ‘research’ based on skewed demographics and the sexual abuse of hundreds of infants and children.”
The brief pleads with the Supreme Court not to “erase millennia of human history and dismantle the granite cornerstone of society in favor of an experimental construct that is barely a decade old.” Instead, Liberty Counsel asserts, “This case presents the Court with the opportunity to affirm and preserve the unique, comprehensive union of a man and a woman, the foundational social institution upon which society was built and the future of the nation depends.”
In the past, the Supreme Court has upheld marriage as a foundational social institution that is necessarily defined as the union of one man and one woman:
“Older than the Constitution and the laws of any nation, marriage is not a creation of any government, but it is an obvious relationship between one man and one woman. Marriage is a natural bond that society or religion can only ‘solemnize,’” said Mat Staver, founder and chairman of Liberty Counsel.
It is a tragic commentary on America’s moral freefall that the highest court in the land would consider, even for an instant, perverting the cornerstone institution of marriage to reflect the psychotic image and anti-social activism of a man who, himself, was a criminal pervert.
Liberty Counsel is calling Christians to unite in fasting and prayer for three days before the Supreme Court hears the case – on April 23, 24 and 25.
At this point, prayer alone may save marriage and keep, at bay, the wrath of a just and Holy God.
Legislators Reintroduce FIREARM Act to Expose ‘Race, Ethnicity’ Requirements for Gun Purchases
4/18/2015 12:00:00 PM - Cortney O'Brien
The Bureau of Alcohol, Tobacco, Firearms and Explosives (ATF) currently requires potential gun owners to provide their race and ethnicity when purchasing a firearm. If gun retailers fail to enforce this law, the federal government can put them out of business.
Reps. Diane Black (R-TN) and Ted Poe (R-TX), two legislators who recognize and appreciate Americans’ right to bear arms, have reintroduced the Freedom From Intrusive Regulatory Enforcement of Arbitrary Registration Mandates Act in response to the ATF’s superfluous regulations.
“This requirement by the ATF is another example how this administration continually makes it harder for law-abiding citizens to possess firearms,” said Congressman Ted Poe. “Forcing citizens who are lawfully purchasing guns to disclose race and ethnicity with the threat of federal prosecution if they fail to disclose is completely unnecessary. Bottom line, if a law-abiding citizen is lawfully purchasing firearms, race and ethnicity are irrelevant. It is time to stop punishing those who are following the law.”
Black expounded on Poe’s statement, adding that it’s not just a gun owning issue, but a privacy concern.
“The government has no legitimate reason to collect this information in the first place. That is why my bill would ban the ATF from requiring Americans to list their race or ethnicity in order to purchase a firearm.”
Both the NRA and Gun Owners of America are applauding Black’s and Poe’s efforts. Here is an excerpt from a grateful letter GOA sent Rep. Black.
“It should be of interest to both conservatives and liberals that this law enforcement agency is snooping into the racial and ethnic identity of gun owners without just cause. Your legislation will protect gun buyers’ privacy, prevent the federal government from needlessly putting gun retailers out of business, and ultimately strengthen Americans’ constitutional right to keep and bear arms.”
So, how did the race and ethnicity requirement get passed in the first place? The answer is: quietly.
With little fanfare, the Bureau of Alcohol, Tobacco, Firearms and Explosives (ATF) in 2012 amended its Form 4473 — the transactional record the government requires gun purchasers and sellers to fill out when buying a firearm — to identify buyers as either Hispanic, Latino or not. Then a buyer must check his or her race: Indian, Asian, black, Pacific Islander or white.
The Obama administration is not always so subtle in its disregard for the Second Amendment. In February, for instance, the ATF sought to ban the sale of AR-15 ammunition. Right now, members of Congress, like Diane Black and Ted Poe, are exposing the White House's gun control agenda loud and clear–and that is good news for gun owners.
Overreaching on Iran
4/19/2015 12:01:00 AM - Steve Chapman
The case against the U.S. nuclear deal with Iran is easy to make. It doesn't ensure that Iran will never get the bomb; it doesn't require Iran to renounce terrorism; it doesn't end Iran's hostility toward Israel. Each of these things is highly desirable, and the agreement provides none of them.
What it will do, if all the right details are nailed down and the terms are firmly enforced, is make it harder for Iran to acquire nukes while postponing that possibility for a decade or more. Before the agreement under which the talks began, Tehran's "breakout time" was estimated at about a month. Under the tentative deal, it will be more like a year.
There is a basic dispute on this accord. The opponents see Iran as a deadly disease that must be cured once and for all. The supporters regard Iran as a troublesome condition that may not be eliminated but can be managed.
The fantasy of permanently eliminating a security problem is a recurrent one in American foreign policy. It wasn't enough to topple the Taliban and smash al-Qaida in Afghanistan. We had to undertake a long-term military effort to guarantee it would never again harbor terrorists.
It wasn't enough to keep Saddam Hussein in a cage, where he posed minimal danger. We had to remove him and make his country a model for the Middle East. It wasn't enough to get Moammar Gadhafi to swear off terrorism and give up his nuclear program. We had to bring about regime change.
None of these ended well. In each case, smaller ambitions would have provided adequate protection at a reasonable cost. But the temptation to banish a danger once and for all caused us to overreach, with painful consequences that we are still suffering.
Iran is likely to turn out the same way if die-hard opponents of a nuclear deal get their way. Not that the deal is definitely a good thing. Until all the specifics are resolved, it's impossible to know. But the most vehement critics have already made up their minds. Even if Iran abides by the Obama administration's interpretation of what's to be done, they believe we have given away too much.
Compared with what? It's not as if the detractors have any promising alternatives. "You can ratchet up the sanctions," insists Israeli Prime Minister Benjamin Netanyahu.
But sanctions are not so potent as all that. North Korea eats sanctions for breakfast. Saddam laughed at our sanctions. Sanctions may induce a regime to consider compromises with its enemies. But they have never forced the complete capitulation imagined by American hawks.
Nor does economic pressure offer quick relief. If we walked away from the deal, we'd find ourselves waiting for the sanctions to force Iran to surrender -- while Iran might embark on an all-out race to build a nuclear arsenal.
In that case, the hawks would urge that we launch airstrikes on Iran's nuclear facilities. There are two chief shortcomings in this course. First, it would merely delay what we hope to prevent. Iran could kick out inspectors and rebuild its nuclear program in hidden sites. Second, it would mean a real live shooting war with Iran.
Obama's critics, notably Sen. Tom Cotton, R-Ark., act as though military action would be quick and easy. He told The Atlantic he has in mind "something like Operation Desert Fox" -- referring to a 70-hour bombing campaign the U.S. carried out against Saddam in 1998.
But it was not a rousing success, even though Iraq's regime was far weaker than Iran's is today. Afterward, a NATO diplomat told The New York Times, "Nothing has changed, and no one seems to know where we go from here." Where we went from there was the 2003 invasion, to solve a problem the airstrikes hadn't.
Cotton and his allies think we can achieve a victorious conclusion in short order. Where on earth do they get that idea? Against far weaker foes in Afghanistan and Iraq, we found ourselves up to our necks in trouble we didn't foresee, incurring far more casualties than the architects had imagined.
Iran is not the only threat here. Our own hubris is equally dangerous. The tentative Iran deal falls short of a complete cure of the Iran problem. But by now, we should know that some cures are worse than the disease.