Archives For October 2020

‘Entrepreneur, digital marketing guru, and best-selling author’, Scott Galloway, told The Australian this week that an unholy alliance existed between Donald Trump, Facebook, Google, YouTube, and Twitter.

Galloway ‘wants the US government to radically overfund regulatory bodies like the Department of Justice and Federal Trade Commission in America, to rewrite the rule book on anti-trust: moving away from a test around consumer harm and prices back to a test around market power.’

Quoting Galloway, Ticky Fullerton stated, ‘the odds of a possible break-up are three to five times more likely with a well-funded and more thoughtful administration around tech, the Biden/Harris administration.’

This is because ‘Trump has shown just a mix of inconsistency, incompetence and underfunding that transfers advantage to big tech.’ Noting that Big Tech were coming through COVID-19 as big winners.

Galloway’s advice to investors was to move in front of ‘three tsunamis’ which are set to make significant financial gains, as people, and businesses ‘move from commercial to residential, traditional education to online learning, hospitals, and doctors’ offices to home and remote health.’

Galloway makes sense when talking about COVID triggering seismic economic shifts. His absurd claim of an unholy alliance between Trump, and big tech, is way off. 

As ‘Professor of marketing strategy at NYU’, and one-time board member of the New York Times, Galloway’s predictions are probably par for the course.

Support Biden now, be rewarded later. Don’t support Biden now, be punished later.

Meaning that Galloway is assured a place at the power table, where he’ll join the majority of journalists currently playing partisan defense for the opposition in the United States.

The latter having chosen to remain silent on verified facts relating to substantial corruption within the Biden family. Choosing to aid the Biden/Harris camp by not pressuring them to deny categorically, or provide an evidence-based answer.

Here is why Galloway is right that a Biden/Harris administration would be more likely to back the ‘radical overfunding of regulatory bodies.’ It’s also why he’s dead wrong about Trump.

Radicalism is the basis of the Biden/Harris policy platform. Overfunding would require increased taxation, and bigger government. These are areas where the Democrats excel. Taxation and government-will-save-the-day is their default position when offering solutions to problems, whether real, exaggerated, or manufactured.

In addition, big tech hates Trump. They’re private bias against the conservative voice, comes out in their public aid of their preferred candidate. In this case Biden (maybe more so, Harris), in their bid for the White House.

Examples of this include Silicon Valley’s very cosy relationship with Communist China, and their stonewalling of the New York Post over verified claims about the Biden family’s business dealings. The continual suppression and control of speech, and information, through agenda driven “fact-checkers.”

From “believe the science about apocalyptic climate change”, to deny the science “there are more than two genders”, “not all women have periods”, “abortion is healthcare”, down to arbitrary laws which represses freedom of speech and individual responsibility, you can be sure that Big Tech supports the Democrat platform.

If an unholy alliance does exist between government and Silicon Valley, its members don’t include Donald Trump or his supporters.

For Big Tech, it’s not a matter of if Biden wins, it’s a matter of when Trump loses. They want to be on the “right side of history”* when Biden secures (with their help) an “unprecedented” and “historic” 2020 election victory. (*newspeak for: in good with wannabe Leftist overlords).

Big Tech needs accountability. There’s bipartisan agreement on this. We don’t want a centralized conglomerate with a monopoly on information; governed by pompous, dishonest gatekeepers who adjust algorithms, to favour news and information that best serves their bottom line, favourite politician, or activist lobby group, and not the masses.

Galloway overlooks the overall mistreatment of the Trump administration, and Donald Trump since his election. Much of it encouraged by Big Tech, who fail to censor speech which breaches their own rules, from the likes of Cathy Griffin, Carl Reiner, Bette Midler et.al. Then shadow bans entities and individuals who aren’t ideologically aligned with the prevailing worldview in Silicon Valley.


References:

Fullerton, T. 2020. Tech Giants ‘lapping up a tsunami of capital’ The Australian, Wednesday 29th October 2020

First published on Caldron Pool, 29th October 2020.

©Rod Lampard, 2020.

Ronald Reagan had a unique distaste for career politicians sucking wealth out of D.C.’s tax-payer funded tenure. Most too often more in tune with self-service, than public service. He also had a keen dislike for the faulty, seized-up mechanical inner-workings of Washington.

Reagan was a citizen president. He poked fun at the self-importance of the political class, and wasn’t afraid to include himself in it.

Talking to a gathering of Independent television stations two years after being elected to office, Reagan quipped,

‘”I sometimes think that government is like that definition – that old definition of a baby. It’s an alimentary canal with an appetite at one end and no sense of responsibility at the other.”

Reagan came to office at the end of a dismal decade. In large part because Reagan was, as John O’Sullivan also wrote of Thatcher and Pope John Paul II, ‘one of the apostles of hope’, when despair, fear, and doom, was the order of the day.

The 70s were turbulent. Global instability was everywhere.

The mid to late 60s were an open wound. Peace in Vietnam War was won, and then lost by diplomatic fumbling. Americans were confronted with deep state political corruption, and suffered through a series of fearmongering, joyless Presidential leaders from Republicans to Democrats.

The biggest issue of them all was the “Energy Crisis.”

Concerns over the “Energy Crisis” – a decline in domestic energy production, coupled with Lyndon Johnson’s environmental restrictions, and an OPEC embargo (a consequence of America’s support for Israel during the Yom Kippur War), resulting in high oil prices – was echoed by both sides of the political aisle, coupled with apocalyptic projections, and big government solutions to them.

Republican, President Richard Nixon’s proposed energy rationing, was later extended by Democrat, President Jimmy Carter, who, in 1979, told Americans that the “energy crisis” was here to stay. Then tabled a policy around big government control, such as mandatory rationing. (The 1970s version of “the new normal.”)

Carter’s panic rode on the back of urgency, caused by a drop in global oil supply, a consequence of the 1979 Islamist, Iranian revolution.

His six-point plan delivered the same year, included an increase in taxes, ‘mandatory conservation, gasoline rationing’, ‘expanding public transportation’, and creating a new government department to oversee energy rationing, and conservation.

Carter’s speech wove the “energy crisis” into a “crisis of confidence,” telling Americans that they were losing their sense of purpose, and needed to act:

“I’m asking you for your good and for your nation’s security, to take no unnecessary trips, to use carpools or public transportation whenever you can, to park your car one extra day per week, to obey the speed limit, and to set your thermostats to save fuel. Every act of energy conservation like this is more than just common sense, I tell you it is an act of patriotism.”

Carter’s blame shifting by way of his infamous “crisis of confidence” gave Reagan an edge.

Who said in return that,

 “it’s true there’s a lack of confidence, an unease with things the way they are, but the confidence we’ve lost is confidence in our Government’s policies…there remains the greatness of our people, our capacity for dreaming up fantastic deeds and bringing them off to the surprise of an unbelieving world.” (NYT, 14th November, 1979)

Six years after the success of Reagan’s ‘supply-side mix’ policies, which reduced ‘intrusive and overburdening taxation, regulatory, and currency policies, delivering an effective resolution to the ‘Energy Crisis’, Reagan told administration supporters,

“I’ve always thought that the common sense and the wisdom of the Government were summed up in a sign they used to have hanging on that gigantic Hoover Dam. It said: “Government Property. Do Not Remove.” (29th June, 1987)

It’s often said that we don’t vote for individuals, we vote for political parties, their politicians, and their current policy platform.

The 2020 choice for Americans gives this axiom resonance. 

The Trump/Pence vs. Biden/Harris ballot is a ballot between a citizen President, and career politicians.

Similar in many ways to the context of Reagan vs. Carter in ’79.

One side speaks of hope, freedom, individual responsibility, perseverance, ingenuity, and protections for civil liberties.

The other speaks of crisis upon crisis; of doom, and destruction. From which they preach that only the political class, correct alignment with Leftism, and big government can save us.

Such as, Joe Biden’s “dark winter”, the alleged crises of “institutional racism”, “an unbeatable, Covid-19,” “the new normal of wearing masks, enduring lockdowns, and losing livelihoods in economic shutdowns”; unhealthy fear of conservatives in the supreme court, and apocalyptic “climate change.”

Joe Biden is too entrenched in the game to see that he is the D.C. “swamp”, that leftist activists, are part of the establishment, dancing Carter’s “crisis of confidence”, bureaucratic two-step: the art of blaming others, and looking busy while achieving nothing at all.

On this basis, a vote for Biden is a retreat into darkness. It’s a vote for a “crisis of confidence”; a vote for career politicians who are guarded by leftist activists, and guided by the idolatry inherent within their ideological nonsense.

As Ronald Reagan said in 1964,

“You and I have a rendezvous with destiny.”

“We’ll preserve for our children this, the last best hope of man on earth, or we’ll sentence them to take the last step into a thousand years of darkness.” (A Time For Choosing)


References:

[i] Cited by Karl Menninger, 1976. Whatever became of Sin? p.142

[ii] O’Sullivan, J. 2006. The President, The Pope & The Prime Minister, Regnery Publishing

First published on Caldron Pool, 28th October, 2020.

©Rod Lampard, 2020.

Note that the entire (current) Democrat policy platform is simply: “hate Trump, because love trumps hate.”

To Trump’s credit, he’s never come out and said, “if you don’t vote for me, you hate America.”

It’s bewildering to those of us who are constantly interacting with a wide range sources and material, to see and hear people accuse Trump of being dictatorial, when it’s those on the Left actually saying “if you vote for Trump, you hate America.”

Which, in Biden/Harris intersectional speak, means, ‘if you don’t vote for Biden/Harris, you ain’t American!”

It’s a risky gamble for current Democrats to rest on deception, and evasion, as a sure fire way to take political ground from political opponents by falsely claiming those opponents are doing exactly the same thing that Democrat policies, and rhetoric is doing. Such as dividing Americans.

Look at the recent debate.

Joe Biden accused Donald Trump of being a xenophobe and racist; of taking Joe’s words about fracking “out of context”, then Joe rips the context out of Trump’s relationship building attempts with North Korea, Russia, Mexico (through the USMCA deal), and America’s black community, just to orchestrate a false image of Trump. Which Biden then attempted to use as a a way of discredited the President by slapping on him terms from the Left’s usual go to of derogatory slurs, such as racist, and xenophobe.

Notice Biden’s doubletalk.

He made the claim that Americans were all gonna die of Covid-19 if they didn’t vote for him. Then, with his closing remarks, said “we’re going to choose hope over fear.”

Biden also acknowledged that the U.S provides 25% of the global economy, but that that economy essentially needs to be shut down in order to protect against COVID-19.

Another example: while advocating a fair go for small businesses, contradicted what he’d said earlier about those same small businesses having to implement costly COVID-19 protection gear, such as plexiglass.

Then Biden used an attack on Trump’s personal income taxes to dodge answering questions about the scandal involving his son, Hunter Biden.

The shots were a low blow. Trump’s businesses generate tax revenue, while Biden’s wealth, as a career politician, is built on that same revenue.

The character of each political camp can be identified by how the majority of one group is praying for their nation and candidates. While the other group is paying through their noses in order to not only see their candidate win, but to shelter him from all just criticism.

The 2020 election is about a citizen President going in to bat against a career politician. (If we’re thorough, we’d need to also add the plural, politicians, and include activists in that mix).

Trump is flawed, but he’s no fascist.

Many on the Left, and the majority of Democrats on the other hand, exhibit the very same tendencies they claim to see in Donald Trump.

As Stephen Chavura aptly put it:

Re Trump = fascist. Historically fascists take advantage of riots or street violence to declare states of emergency. They use riots to justify aggrandising their power. Trump didn’t do this at all during the riots. Nor did he use a Covid state of emergency to aggrandise his powers. Such accusations are mere projection. Over the last two years it’s not been conservatives who appealed to states of emergency to justify expanding the state’s powers, but the left appealing to “climate emergency” and Dan with his covid “emergency” in Victoria. Trump ain’t no authoritarian or fascist.’


© Rod Lampard, 2020.

Google the phrase “Trump supporters threatened with Civil War.” All that pops up is a bunch of wishful thinking mainstream media articles from 2019 pushing false claims that Trump had threatened to start a civil war if he was impeached.

These stand alongside more recent articles where leftist outlets have gone to the fringe of American society, in search of the wackiest Trump supporting American with a gun they can find, in order to slap on them the tag “Trump supporter prepares for civil war.”

With the media’s Spidey senses fine-tuned to this alleged Trump induced threat of Civil War, there’s a very noticeable absence from major news organizations about reports that Trump supporters have received letters actually threatening them with civil war, should Trump lose the upcoming U.S. election, and refuse to leave the White House.

At least three people are known to have received the anonymous letter, which states:

“You have been identified by our group as being a Trump supporter. Your address has been added to our database as a target when we attack should Trump not concede the election.”

Outspoken celebrity, James Woods posted a scanned copy of the letter onto Twitter captioning it “This is being sent al over the country to American citizens who have dared put Trump campaign signs in their yards.”

According to WMUR police are investigating the origin of the anonymous letters, saying that these are felony level criminal threats because they contain threats to “burn homes down and cause injury, but it could also be with the postal inspectors, something on the federal level.”

Silence from most in the mainstream media is another example of the national media, yet again, playing defense for the opposition.

They remain uninterested in news of serious, compromising material found on Hunter Biden’s alleged laptop, and they continue to shuck, and jive, when it comes to asking Joe Biden questions about his knowledge, and reported connection to the material.

Had these letters threatening civil war been sent to Biden supporters, or Hunter Biden been Donald Trump Jnr. it’s a given that mainstream media, and their gatekeepers on social media, would be dedicating wall-to-wall airtime to it. Complete with experts, and panels examining the evidence, speculating on how this impacts the Biden/Harris ticket.

This is proven by  The Washington Post, and CNN’s response to emails allegedly sent by Proud Boys to Democrat voters.

Proud Boys’ chief, Enrique Tarrio denied that they were being behind the emails, saying,

“No, it wasn’t us. The people [who sent the emails] used a spoofing email that pretended to be us. Whoever did this should be in prison for a long time.”      

Even though Proud Boys have denounced the threats and are said to be working with the FBI, The Washington Post’s article claiming Proud Boys association to the emails hasn’t been corrected.


First published on Caldron Pool, 23rd October 2020.

© Rod Lampard, 2020.

Kemi Badenoch, Conservative MP from the U.K just puts words to what many think privately, yet feel powerless to say publicly.

The first-generation immigrant, and MP for Saffron Walden’s 8 minute speech reasoned out the Johnson Government’s “unequivocal no” to Critical Race Theory, and the Black Lives Matter Marxist movement.

Responding in parliament during ‘general debate’ relating to the United Kingdom’s annual, month long celebration of Black history, Badenoch described CRT as an “an ideology that sees blackness as victimhood and whiteness as oppression.”

Adding, “what we are against is the teaching of contested political ideas as if they are accepted facts…we do not want to see teachers teaching their white pupils about white privilege and inherited racial guilt. And let me be clear: any school which teaches these elements of Critical Race Theory as fact, or which promotes partisan political views such as defunding the police without offering a balanced treatment of opposing views, is breaking the law.”

Badenoch’s “no” to the Black Lives Matter Marxist movement, its poorly informed supporters, and wide-ranging run of the mill sycophants was just as sharp.

As quoted by The Blaze, Badenoch asserted,

“”Black lives do matter, of course they do, but we know that the Black Lives Matter movement — capital B.L.M. — is political. I know this, because at the height of the protests, I have been told of white Black Lives Matter protesters calling — and I’m afraid … I apologize for saying this word — calling a black armed police officer guarding downing street a ‘pet n*****.

“That is why we do not endorse that movement on this side of the House,” Badenoch reiterated. “It is a political movement, and what would be nice, would be for members on the opposite side to condemn many of the actions that we see this political movement, instead of pretending that it is completely wholesome anti-racist organization, that there is a lot of pernicious stuff that is being pushed and we stand against that.”

As a mother, and Equalities Minister for the current UK government, Badenoch said,

why does this issue mean so much to me? It is not just because I’m a first-generation immigrant, it is because my daughter came home from school this month and said ‘we’re learning Black History Month because every other month is about white history.’

“This is wrong and this is not what our children should be picking up,” she concluded. “These are not the values I have taught her.”

Badenoch also pushed back against attempts to conflate American history with the UK, saying,

“our history of race is not America’s history of race most black British people who have come to our shores were not brought here in chains but came voluntarily due to their connections to the UK and in search of a better life.”

With many learning the facts about Critical Race Theory, and coming to grips with what Black Lives Matter stands for, not just what they stand against, Badenoch’s speech is certain to go viral.

Her 2017 maiden speech to parliament is also worth checking out.


First published on Caldron Pool, 21st October 2020

©Rod Lampard, 2020.

For all the broad, and vague claims from the left about “white systemic racism”, many on the left have long exhibited an intrenched entitlement to ownership and control over the black community.

Evidence of this abounds.

Just take Democrat Presidential candidate, Joe Biden’s statement comparing diversity within the black and Latino communities, or his remark that “if you have a problem figuring out whether you’re for me or Trump, then you ain’t black.”

Another example is Biden’s repeated falsehoods about Trump and racism, tripped by Trump banning dodgy Critical Race Theory training.

This is also largely seen by how, during every election, Democrats turn on white vs. black conditioning, triggering reflexes in the community that have been pre-programmed through propaganda to stimulate action without thought.

Action from within the black community which deviates from the reflex programming of the Leftist “us vs. them” therefore “vote my way or else you’re a …!”, is condemned.

Mostly with blanket criticism from the Left, which is usually racist in nature, and mostly because the individual or group has broken free from the chains of the predominate reflex.

For example, last week Rap icon, O’Shea Jackson (aka Ice Cube) was berated for approaching Trump to go into bat for impoverished black American communities.

Cube was accused of “siding with Trump”, “endorsing Trump” and “joining forces with evil.” In response he rolled out a series of Tweets countering the narrative.

Cube’s crime? Trump stepped up to the negotiation table, where the Dems shuffled some papers, and said ‘wait until after the election.’

Ice Cube’s a smart guy. He knows the bureaucratic arrogance of power in the DC swamp, the power of the “everything is racist” industry, and the power games of its many political cabals/insiders.

Using Twitter to push back Cube wrote,

 “A lot of energy being spent on telling me to stay in my lane. Zero energy spent on telling Biden/Harris they need to do way more for Black people to sure up the vote. Smh” (Oct. 18)

Responding to a Politico headline Cube denied the claims of collaboration with Trump:

“Joined forces? Stop pushing these bull&*t headlines.” (Oct. 17)

Implying the same, The Washington Post called the news, “a bewildering revelation, oddly fitting for 2020”.

Cube’s comments to TMZ appear to have gone unnoticed:

‘his sole focus was getting the administration to adopt elements of his Contract with Black America … in order to improve Black lives. He insists he is NOT attempting to sway Black votes toward either candidate.’ (TMZ)

This is also despite the brilliant (widely publicized) summary of his argument and defense on the 15th: 

‘Every side is the Darkside for us here in America. They’re all the same until something changes for us. They all lie and they all cheat but we can’t afford not to negotiate with whoever is in power or our condition in this country will never change. Our justice is bipartisan.’ (Oct. 15)

Ice Cube isn’t the only voice from the Rap community deviating from the well-honed pro-Democrat, or else, reflex.   

R ‘n B rap legend Curtis James Jackson III (aka 50 Cent; Fif) just backed Trump, in response to news about the Biden/Harris tax plan.  

The rapper threw in his cincuenta’s centavos’ worth on Instagram, and Twitter writing ‘Vote for Trump. I’m out…’

50 Cent responded to reports, such as CNBC’s, which stated that Biden’s plan could hit Californians & New Yorkers with 62.6% in ‘federal and state’ tax rates for ‘anyone earning over $400,000 a year’, with proposed tax-cuts for those earning under that amount.’ CNBC added, high income ‘earners would be taxed the highest in more than 30 years, and well above the rates under the Obama administration.’

Backlash and criticism of 50 Cent’s endorsement was almost immediate.

Though not completely representative of the Hip Hop community, Hip Hop industry content provider, HNHH, called 50 Cent’s post a “shocking endorsement for Trump.”

Spouting Critical Race Theory conspiracy theories about America as a whole, and false claims about Donald Trump refusing to condemn “white supremacy,” HNHH all but denounced 50 Cent.

Referencing followers of the asinine Intersectionality belief that “all white people are racist, white privileged, homophobic bigots,” HNHH  accused the rapper of greed.

Claiming: ‘obviously, [Fif’s] money is more important to him than climate change, systemic racism, and other issues that Trump does not prioritize.’

Suffice to say, HNHH’s criticisms of 50 Cent aligns with The Washington Post’s sloppy criticism of Ice Cube, and they each come from the same sordid place.

A place of entitlement to, and ownership of the black community. Illustrated best by the potential head Democrat in charge, Joe Biden: “if you have a problem figuring out whether you’re for me or Trump, then you ain’t black.”


First published on Caldron Pool, 20th October 2020.

©Rod Lampard, 2020

Mike Pence’s gentlemen’s applause for Kamala Harris’ selection as Joe Biden’s number two takes into account the fact that Harris would be the first female Vice-President, and potentially the first female President, in U.S. history.

There are three recent events, however, which highlight why Harris may not be the best choice for such an “historic” and “unprecedented” win.

The Shifty Cross-Examination of ACB:

Kamala Harris’s cross-examination of Amy Coney Barrett, Trump’s Supreme Court Judge nominee, during the Senate Judiciary Committees hearings on Barrett’s suitability for the lifelong role raised a red flag.

Following a list of Democrat led bizarre lines of questioning, Harris committed the fallacy of equivocation. Harris covertly tried to connect Barrett’s position on facts about Covid-19 and lung-cancer, with hotly contested conjecture about “apocalyptic Climate Change.”

As The Daily Wire’s, Andrew Klavan reported, Harris was trying to pin on Barrett the label “climate denier” in order to discredit her in the same way, anyone versed in broadly noted, historical fact, a holocaust denier. Harris didn’t succeed, and ACB caught the trap, and pushed back, before Harris could push her into it.

The Infamous Fly on Pence’s Head:

When MSNBC’s Rachel Maddow asked Harris if she’d noticed the fly on Pence’s head, Harris responded in the affirmative. When Maddow asked Harris if she was tempted to move the fly on, Harris smiled, feigned laugh, then cracked a joke (pun) about ‘flying away’ from the subject.

If Harris knew there was a fly on Pence’s head, and Pence didn’t, why didn’t Harris do something about it? Even if the fly was only there for 2 minutes.

Why didn’t those in charge, such as the producers, boom operators, camera controllers etc. act on it in between shots?

It’s not a big issue, and I’ll be the first to admit, the borderline pettiness of even raising the point, but professionals knowing, and doing nothing about such as small event for a V.I.P raises as many questions about their professionalism, and opinion of Pence, as it does Kamala Harris’ character.

The Iran Deal:

In 2018, Harris issued a statement claiming that Trump pulling American out of the Obama administration’s 2015 “Iran nuclear deal”[i]  had violated the deal, jeopardizing U.S national security and isolating the Americans from their closest allies.”

Harris said, that this ‘nuclear deal is not perfect, but it is certainly the best existing tool we have to prevent Iran from developing nuclear weapons and avoid a disastrous military conflict in the Middle East.’

While being truthful about the “not perfect” part, Harris was not completely honest about the Obama deal being the only way to stop Iran gaining a nuclear weapon.

The Iran deal only restricted Iran from enriching uranium for a short period of time.

As reported by Aljazeera in May of 2019, ‘the restrictions on Iran’s centrifuges would be lifted after the eighth year, and 15 years onwards, restrictions on its uranium enrichment and stockpile size would expire. Some critics believe it would be possible for Iran to go back on the nuclear path around the mid-2020s. Iran also negotiated the eventual lifting of an embargo on the import and export of conventional arms and ballistic missiles…’

This was also highlighted in part by Trump’s rebus sic stantibus reasonings for pulling out of Obama’s six nation contract with Iran.

The U.S. President sought to renegotiate restrictions, including ‘more intrusive weapons inspections and, what would effectively, be a permanent ban on ‘Iran enriching uranium.’ Trump, according to Aljazeera was open to a new deal, saying “‘the Iran deal must either be renegotiated or terminated.”

Trump called the deal “one-sided”, “poorly negotiated” and an “embarrassment.”

He cited Israel intelligence documents showing that Iran already had a long history of pursuing Nuclear weapons, saying ‘this disastrous deal gave this regime – and it’s a regime of great terror – many billions of dollars, some of it in actual cash – a great embarrassment to me as a citizen and to all citizens of the United States. A constructive deal could easily have been struck at the time, but it wasn’t. At the heart of the Iran deal was a giant fiction that a murderous regime desired only a peaceful nuclear energy program.’

Not that Trump’s haters noted it with any fanfare, but the President’s May 2018 announcement included the promise to “stand with the long-suffering Iranian people” and that his administration would “work with allies to find a real, comprehensive, and lasting solution to the Iranian nuclear threat.”

Trump’s speech concluded with criticism of the Islamist Iranian regime, and the acknowledgement that “the future of Iran belongs to its people. They are the rightful heirs to a rich culture and an ancient land, and they deserve a nation that does justice to their dreams, honor to their history and glory to God.”

While Harris berated Trump for questioning the deal, she’s also on record admitting that the Iran deal “isn’t prefect”, but has proudly stated that if she were elected President she’d rejoin Americans to the flawed contract.

To add, during the Pence/Harris debate, Harris inadvertently admitted just how precarious the original deal was. Saying that Trump “walking away” from the flawed contract put the United States “in a position where it was less safe, because they [Iran] are building up what might end up being a significant nuclear arsenal.” (Transcript)

Trump pulled the United States out in May, 2018 for these very reasons. If Iran are building a significant nuclear arsenal, as Harris surmises (in an attempt to discredit the current administration) it’s not a stretch to say that Iran has been doing it long before 2018.

The Iran Nuclear deal was a costly band-aid misapplied, in the spirit of appeasement, to the wrong kind of wound.

It wasn’t going to stop Iran’s Regime from pursuing what they’ve been pursuing for decades: the ability to “wipe Israel off the map, and erase all enemies of Allah.”

There’s also the fact that Iran’s Islamist leaders are under no obligation to remain true to the agreement.

Under the guidance of the Quranic ‘taqiyya’, lying to the infidel is an acceptable practice if it ‘advances Islam. In some cases, by gaining the trust of non-believers in order to draw out their vulnerability and defeat them.’ For example: Quran (66:2) – “Allah has already ordained for you the dissolution of your oaths…”  (ROP)

Harris’ use of equivocation in her cross-examination of Amy Coney Barrett. Harris’ falsehoods, and discourteous inaction on Pence’s behalf during the debate, and the stereotypical mean-girl responses to it. Along with her shaky, flip-flop – it’s good, but also bad – naïve positioning on the Iran deal, give good reasons to question whether Harris is the better choice, over-against Mike Pence, for the potential role of President of the United States.


References:

[i] Joint Comprehensive Plan of Action (JCPOA) originally signed by China, France, Russia, the UK, the United States and Germany.

First published on Caldron Pool, 18th October 2020.

©Rod Lampard, 2020.