Is Obama's Deal Less Damaging Than Bush's Invasion?

The left is saying that Obama’s agreement with Iran is less damaging than Bush invading Iraq.  Given their own arguments, this can’t be true.  As the left reminds us constantly, Iraq had no weapons of mass destruction. Under Barry the Brilliant's agreement, Iran will have nuclear weapons in at most 10 years time. A failed state in Iraq can inflict at most one World Trade Center scale attack on the US. While that would be terrible, three thousand killed would be dwarfed by the casualties of a successful nuclear attack on New York City. The left seems to be arithmetic challenged in both budgetary and military matters.

The Smartest President Ever has maneuvered the world to the point where Israel's only option appears to be war with Iran. Ironically, this appears to be the only option left to Saudi Arabia as well. The Saudis and Israelis have been quietly discussing cooperation in the last year or so.

The deal gives Iran access to $150 billion of frozen assets. To put this in perspective, Iran has about $55 billion in oil revenue per year. I don't think Iran's enemies in the region will permit Iran to sell oil in addition to the $150 billion they will have to spend on weapons and financing terrorism. About 90% of Iranian oil exports pass through the Kharg Island oil terminal, which is about 16 miles offshore. It is packed with oil storage tanks. We will know the war has started when we see a big fire on Kharg Island which destroys the oil terminal. In the Iran Iraq war (1980-1988), Saddam Hussein's air force knocked out Kharg Island.

The biggest problem that the Community Organizer in Chief has created with his extended diplomacy is the fortification of Iran's nuclear infrastructure. It's now the case that to destroy key facilities would probably require a 30,000 pound enhanced bunker buster bomb. Only the US Air Force has the capability to deliver this conventional explosive bomb against Iran's current air defenses. The Saudis and Israelis would need to use nuclear weapons. The Israelis have an estimated 150 nuclear warheads. The Saudis financed Pakistan's bomb, so they can always buy a few if they need to.

So all of this "peaceful" diplomacy has created a situation where war is almost inevitable. The only good news is that it won't involve US military action right away. We will probably have to pay some ransom to get back our troops in Iraq from Iran's control, but that's the end of our short term involvement.

Longer term, the world will be a huge mess we have to live in.

Who's the Bigger Spender, Bush or Obama?

Liberals are still trying to tell everyone that Bush is a bigger spender than Obama.  What I look at are the total debt figures published by the US Treasury. Using Treasury figures, the total federal debt now stands at $18.15 trillion. On 9/30/2009 at the start of the first full fiscal year of the Obama administration, the debt was $11.91 trillion. Doing the math gives an increase of $6.24 trillion so far for Obama. On 9/30/2001, the start of the first full fiscal year after Bush took office, the debt was at $5.81 trillion. Subtracting that from the 11.91 trillion in 2009, we get $6.1 trillion for Bush's full 8 years. Using just simple math and US government figures, Obama is already ahead with more than 2 years to go. The figures liberals are using are contrived to hide what's actually going on. The net debt figures are never messed with. These are readily available figures, but they are never mentioned on MSNBC, because liberals believe that welfare comes from an always full pot of gold at the end of the rainbow and never has to be worked for or paid for.

http://www.treasurydirect.gov/...
https://www.treasurydirect.gov...

Liberals Force Me to Play Identity Politics

I'm tired of liberals assuming I'm intolerant racist due to their ignorant prejudices. So let's play identity politics. My sister in law is black and she's the best thing that ever happened to my little brother. I go to a Protestant church once a year for Easter. My wife is not a Christian. Three of my grandparents were from three different varieties of Christianity. One of my grandfathers was Jewish. My family was always in favor of civil rights since the 1850's, when they freed all of their slaves in Virginia, bought them passage to Liberia and gave them money to buy land once they got there. It wasn't safe for freed slaves to remain in 1850's Virginia.

In Montana we were unpopular because we paid "white" wages to Indians working on our ranch. My Jewish grandfather was not able to buy real estate or rent apartments in certain areas in and around Chicago. My grandmother, a Methodist, had the deed or the lease in her name so they could live wherever they wanted. The Civil Rights Act of 1964 outlawed the restrictive covenants on deeds and leases that kept Jews from buying land in restricted areas.

Historically it's true that Republicans were more in favor of civil rights than Democrats. I think that's still true.  Today there are two black Senators, Democrat Cory Booker from New Jersey and Republican Tim Scott from South Carolina. If Republicans are all as racist as liberals assume, then they must all need new glasses down there in South Carolina. I think Mr. Scott was elected for being a Tea Party Republican. I don't think his race mattered at all. I also think his existence gives the lie to the Democrats' narrative that America has not improved since the Jim Crow Era, especially in Dixie. In 1963, Mr. Scott would not have been able to register to vote in South Carolina. Today, he's Senator Scott, the first black US Senator ever elected from South Carolina, the Cradle of the Confederacy with an electorate that's over 60% white. It's curious that the mainstream media did not think Mr. Scott's election was newsworthy. I wonder why that is?

Why Liberals See Racism Everywhere

In the past year, the loud dominating liberal drum beat of racism charges has been a constant presence in domestic news coverage.  Any evidence to the contrary is ignored.  In 2014, South Carolina elected a Tea Party Republican to finish out the Senate term of Jim DeMint.  This doesn't sound too exciting until you look at Tim Scott's picture.  Mr. Scott is the first black Senator ever elected by South Carolina, the Cradle of the Confederacy.  The liberal press didn't think Mr. Scott's election was newsworthy, so they didn't cover it.  Liberals try to hold on to black votes by giving the impression that Jim Crow racism is alive and almost unchanged throughout the country.  Further, all of the racism they see is brought to you by lily white Republicans.  When an event, like Mr. Scott's election, does not fit this narrative, it's ignored.  

If black voters actually examined the record of what Democrats have done for them, or more accurately to them, black voters would not give 90% of their votes to Democrats.  The worst pockets of inner city minority poverty have almost without exception been under one party governments for generations.  The record of failure is quite clear.  Fear is needed to motivate minority voters stuck in these hell holes to keep voting for the failed policies that leave them with no hope.

This isn't to say that racism has been totally eliminated.  But saying that racism today is just as bad as it was in 1963 is ridiculous.  In 1963, Tim Scott couldn't even have registered to vote in South Carolina.  Now, he's US Senator Scott.