Dumb As Trump

Trump can’t help being Trump.

He says outrageous or dumb things about immigrants or his fellow Republican primary candidates five times a day.

But no one — not even the liberals of the mainstream media — really takes Donald Trump or what he spews seriously.

No one thinks the billionaire’s mix of egotistical bloviating and off-the-cuff policy positions represents the Republican Party or conservatism.

Mike Huckebee and Rick Perry are a whole other story.

They’re not clowns. They’re ex-governors. They’re supposed to be serious candidates for the Republican nomination for president.

Yet last week, they each said something dumb as Trump.

Perry’s statement, at least, was made, more or less, in defense of the Second Amendment.

But in the wake of last week’s theater shooting in Lafayette, La., he said that the way to prevent future shootings would be to encourage moviegoers to take their guns into the theaters.

I’m a fervent Second Amendment guy. And I agree with Perry that gun-free zones are always a bad idea because they attract the well-armed crazies who want to commit mass murders.

But even I wouldn’t want to go into a movie theater where everyone was packing — especially a John Wayne or Clint Eastwood movie.

Especially in West Texas.

Gov. Perry should have held his Texas tongue. All he did was make himself — and by extension the GOP — look like he was exploiting a tragedy to make a political point about gun rights.

Then there’s Mike Huckabee.

What he said about the effect the Obama administration’s nuclear deal with Iran was going to have on the state of Israel caused a national political hissy fit.

Huckabee was right on target when he charged that the president’s foreign policy “is the most feckless in American history” and that trusting the Iranians was “naive.”

Where he got himself in trouble was when he said the Iran deal was so bad it “will take the Israelis and march them to the door of the oven.”

Huckabee’s Holocaust reference was not the real problem.

As the leaders of some Jewish American groups protested, the real problem was his premise that the state of Israel is a weakling that can’t defend itself from Iran.

Israel counts on our support, but it can take care of itself if it has to. It has a strong government, a strong leader and a strong military, not to mention lots of tanks, jet planes and scores of nukes.

Israel’s leaders also have something else — courage.

They’re not afraid to act decisively or preemptively when their nation is threatened, as they proved 35 years ago when their jets bombed Iraq’s nuclear research facility.

Huckabee’s Holocaust rhetoric was tut-tutted by some other Republican candidates who thought it was too strong.

Hillary Clinton and other phony Democrats, plus the usual liberal crybabies in the media, made faces and agreed that it was “offensive” and “out of line.”

What Huckabee said didn’t hurt his already slimmer-than-slim chances, but he hurt the GOP team.

He set up an easy layup for the Democrats so they could rise up in fake outrage and paint all the other Republicans as nuts as Trump.

Perry and Huckabee are desperately trying to boost their low poll numbers to qualify for next week’s “Top 10″ primary debate.

They tried to out-trump Trump. But all they did was cause trouble in their own ranks and give Democrats a boatload of fodder that will be used against the GOP next fall.

The views expressed in this opinion article are solely those of their author and are not necessarily either shared or endorsed by WesternJournalism.com.

This post originally appeared on Western Journalism – Equipping You With The Truth

Obama’s Own Top General Just Obliterated Barack’s Biggest Claim About Iran. He’ll Be Furious…

The United States’ top military officer made clear during testimony before the Senate Armed Services Committee on Wednesday that he has not advised President Obama that the U.S. must either accept the Iranian nuclear deal or go to war.

In seeking to sell the Iranian nuclear deal to a skeptical congress and American people, the president, on multiple occasions, has offered this stark choice.

Sen. Joni Ernst, R-Iowa, who is a combat veteran, challenged this premise in her questioning of Chairman of the Joint Chiefs of Staff Gen. Martin Dempsey.

“This seems to be a military decision and I understand that you advise the president on these issues,” she said. “Is that what you have told the president, is that we either take this deal or we go to war?”

Dempsey replied: “No, at no time did that come up in our conversation nor did I make that comment.”

Ernst continued her line of questioning: “Who is advising the president then that we must go to war if this deal is not signed?”

Dempsey answered: “I can’t answer that. I can tell you that we have a range of options and I always present them.”

The senator said: “We are taught in the military about DIME: Diplomatic options, Information operations, Military operations, and Economic types of sanctions and opportunities that we might have. So for the president to outright reject everything but war is outrageous to me. And I do hope that you are able to better advise him that he needs to be careful with his language because that seems to be the rhetoric we are hearing out there is that we either go to war or we accept this deal, and I reject that premise.”

“As long as we agree that military strikes on a sovereign nation is an act of war, but there are things between here and there,” the general responded.

Dempsey’s contention that the United States has a “range of options” between the current state of affairs and war (“here and there”) seemed to directly contradict what the president has been telling the American people. The general did call the plan the most “durable” option available to prevent Iran from obtaining nuclear weapons, according to the Jerusalem Post.

Secretary of State John Kerry insisted in his testimony today that the Hobson’s Choice presented President Obama is accurate: “It’s not a choice the president wants to make, but it’s the inevitable consequence of them moving to assert what they believe is their right in the furtherance of their program.”

The Jerusalem Post reports:

Reacting to the agreement, Adm. (ret.) James Stavridis, a former NATO Supreme Allied Commander now serving as dean of the Fletcher School of Law and Diplomacy at Tufts University outside Boston, said he had several serious concerns.

“The top is the verification regime, which is starting to roughly resemble Swiss cheese,” he said. “You can drive a truck through some of the holes. I am very concerned about that.”

If Congress rejects the deal, the US “still can drive some degree of sanctions,” Stavridis said.

“There are cyber options to pursue,” he continued. “There are clandestine options to pursue. There are special forces options to pursue. I reject a notion that the choice is simply between this deal and going to war.”

As reported by Western Journalism, Israeli Prime Minister Netanyahu has called the deal a “stunning, historic mistake.” The Israeli leader listed three troubling aspects of the agreement:

  1. It lifts economic sanctions against the rogue regime, allowing hundreds of billions of dollars to flow into Iran.
  2. It keeps Iran’s nuclear infrastructure in place.
  3. It gives Iran 24 days to respond to any inspection of facilities by the U.N.

Congress has 60 days to review to deal and is expected to vote on it in September. President Obama has promised to veto any legislation aimed at blocking the deal, which would require a two-thirds vote by both chambers to override.

h/t: IJReview

This post originally appeared on Western Journalism – Equipping You With The Truth

Watch: John Kerry Gets Asked Very Simple Question About Iran Deal, Gives Very Scary Answer

While testifying before the House Foreign Relations Committee on Tuesday concerning the Iran nuclear deal, Secretary of State John Kerry gave a response to a congressman’s question that raised red flags for some.

When Rep. Brad Sherman, D-Calif., pressed Kerry on whether or not he would follow the “law” if Congress decided to override a presidential veto to block the Iran deal, Kerry was non-committal, TheBlaze reports.

“Will you follow the law even though you think it violates this agreement clearly and even if you think it’s absolutely terrible policy?” Sherman asked.

“I can’t begin to answer that at this point without consulting with the president and determining what the circumstances are,” Kerry responded.

“So you’re not committed to following the law?” the Democrat said.

“No, I said I’m not going to deal with a hypothetical, that’s all,” Kerry shot back.

The future of the Iran nuclear deal in Congress is uncertain, with members from both parties voicing major concerns.

The Associated Press reports that “Congress is expected to vote in September to prevent Obama from lifting sanctions imposed previously by lawmakers, a step that would likely cause Iran to walk away from the agreement.”

Obama has promised to veto any bill along those lines, meaning those opposed to the deal will need a two-thirds majority in both houses to override his objections and keep the economic sanctions in place.

In today’s hearing, California Republican Rep. Ed Royce, chairman of the House Foreign Relations Committee, called the deal “a financial windfall” for Iran, “a cash bonanza, a boost to its international standing, and a lighted path toward nuclear weapons,” according to NBC News.

“This deal guts the sanctions web that is putting intense pressure on Iran. Virtually all economic, financial, and energy sanctions disappear. And where does all that money go? To the largest terror network on earth,” Royce said in his opening statement.

Royce later asked Kerry: “So when I look at this and I see that Iran’s neighbors who know it the best, trust it the least I just ask …we are presuming Iran is going to change its behavior?”

“No we’re not,” Kerry responded.

Apart from Royce, the panel’s senior Democrat expressed reservations about the plan. Rep. Eliot Engel of New York said he has “serious questions and concerns about this deal.”

“Engel is a strong supporter of Israel, which vociferously opposes the deal. Iran has said it wants to wipe out Israel,” according to the Blaze.

As reported by Western Journalism, Israeli Prime Minister Netanyahu has called the deal a “stunning, historic mistake.” The Israeli leader listed three troubling aspects of the agreement in an interview with NBC News:

  1. It lifts economic sanctions against the rogue regime, allowing hundreds of billions of dollars to flow into Iran.
  2. It keeps Iran’s nuclear infrastructure in place.
  3. It gives Iran 24 days to respond to any inspection of facilities by the U.N.

Congress began its 60 day review of the deal on July 20.

This post originally appeared on Western Journalism – Equipping You With The Truth

Americans Just Sent Obama A Clear Message Regarding The Iran Nuclear Deal

When roughly 10,000 Americans gathered in New York City’s Times Square to protest the controversial Iranian nuclear deal, it was obvious the proposed agreement was not only unpopular among foreign policy wonks, Republican naysayers and much of Israel’s population.

A recent CNN/ORC poll reveals just how divisive the agreement has become. As legislators continue digging into the deal’s details during a 60-day review period, a clear majority of the poll’s respondents have a clear message for them: reject it.

More than 1,000 adults were asked:

As you may know, the U.S. Congress must approve the agreement the United States and five other countries reached with Iran that is aimed at preventing Iran from developing nuclear weapons before it can take effect. Do you think Congress should approve or reject the deal with Iran?

Pollsters found that 52 percent of those surveyed would tell members of Congress to vote to block the agreement. Several lawmakers have already voiced their firm opposition to a deal many feel could improve Iran’s chances of developing a nuclear arsenal.

Only 44 percent believe Congress should approve the agreement, while another five percent had no opinion.

Though Obama played an integral role in the negotiations that resulted in the unpopular deal, he fared far more favorably in the poll.

Roughly the same number of respondents approve of Obama’s current job performance as disapprove, according to the latest numbers. This result constitutes a marked improvement compared to a poll conducted almost exactly a year ago in which Obama’s disapproval rate surpassed his approval rate by a 55 to 42 margin.

h/t: Independent Journal Review

Should Congress block the Iran deal? Share your thoughts in the comments section below.

This post originally appeared on Western Journalism – Equipping You With The Truth

Watch: Ted Cruz Just Threw An Epic Challenge At Obama- ‘…In Front Of The American People’

Sen. Ted Cruz, R-Texas, has called out President Barack Obama, challenging the president to debate the substance of the Iran nuclear agreement within the next 60 days. The 2016 Republican presidential candidate calls the proposed agreement “the single greatest national security threat facing America.”

“I will invite President Obama at any time and place of his choosing to debate the substance of the Iran deal,” Cruz said Monday on Fox News’s Hannity. “Let’s do it in front of the American people.” Cruz later offered Obama the option of sending Secretary of State John Kerry as a proxy.

Cruz has been adamant that the proposed agreement will enrich America’s enemies.

“Iran is the world’s leading state sponsor of terrorism, so much of that money will end up in the hands of Hamas and Hezbollah and the Houthis, and other radical Islamic terrorists,” Cruz said. “And if this deal goes through, the Obama administration will become, quite literally, the world’s leading financier of radical Islamic terrorism.”

Obama has criticized Republican presidential candidates who oppose the Iran deal. On Monday, Obama chastised former Arkansas Gov. Mike Huckabee’s recent comments that the deal is marching Israelis “to the door of the oven.” Obama said such criticism “is not the kind of leadership that is needed in America right now.”

The Senate is expected to vote on the proposed agreement in September. Republican senators have reacted harshly to the proposal. Sen. Dick Durbin, D-Ill., said that Senate Democrats are more receptive to the treaty. If Senate Republicans vote as a bloc to kill the deal, Senate Democrats cannot afford to lose more than 12 lawmakers in the post-veto battle that would follow.

h/t: The Hill

This post originally appeared on Western Journalism – Equipping You With The Truth