Posts Tagged → JD Vance
Give appeasement a chance
Yes, the “Iran Deal” is appeasement of a dangerous American enemy. Yes, it looks like disgraced British prime minister Neville Chamberlain has arisen from the dead, and declared “Peace in our time” with Iran.
(Chamberlain traveled to Germany three times in 1938 to meet with Adolf Hitler, who pinky- promised him that Germany had no intention of invading more of Czechoslovakia, or any of Poland, or France, or England or or or… and then Germany invaded all of those places, and more, and proved how foolish it is to believe the promises of totalitarian homicidal maniacs like Adolf Hitler or the Iranian mullahs)
Yes, American administrations have rightly said for at least fifty years “We do not negotiate with terrorists.” And what is the “Iran Deal” but direct negotiation, and direct bilateral signatures by the American president, no less, which fully legitimizes the terrorists. This tends to undermine our own credibility in the long run, with terrorists and their victims alike.
Yes, setting “red line” one after another, only to run out of red pens and out of buckets of red paint to draw any more red lines, because Iran had already crossed all of them, and then not holding Iran accountable for crossing them, sends the wrong message. It tells Iran that no matter what, they can probably get away with murder, if they call it something else.
Yes, throwing our allies under the bus (Israel, UAE, Bahrain, Kuwait) when they no longer suit our superficial goal of creating the impression of a “peace deal” is really bad form. And then criticizing Israel for defending its citizens against cross-border rocket fire, because self-defense might mess up the “peace deal,” puts the self-defender in the hot seat, and Iran, the aggressor, in the driver’s seat. This is just bad chess.
One of my greatest concerns is that JD Vance, the Iran deal’s greatest salesman, is so un-likable and abrasive and arrogant, that as the the de facto nominee in 2028, he will cost us the presidency. I 1000% want a Republican president to win the 2028 election, and more and more it looks like Marco Rubio is the one to do it. JD Vance has a sour personality, he just radiates hostile disdain for anyone who disagrees with him, and I do not believe enough Americans will vote for him to make him president. This is perhaps my biggest issue with the “Iran deal”: The wrong guy is trying to sell it.
We can go on and on here, and critique the “Iran deal” line by line, idea by idea, action by action. But, we need to give appeasement a chance.
No, the Iran deal” is not peace by any definition, and it comes with a lot of warnings to Iran, and promises of more bombings if Iran does anything wrong. Yes, it is open appeasement, and no, Iran is unlikely to stick to its end of the deal. However, consider the short-term benefits:
a) Gasoline prices dropped immediately, b) oil markets began leveling out immediately, c) Republicans have less of a likelihood of carrying the millstone of high fuel prices and a less-than-perfect economy around their necks as they enter the mid-term election season, which culminates this November. If the Republicans can survive this election cycle, and maintain control of the US House and the US Senate, then President Trump is not a lame duck for 2027 and 2028, but rather a jet-fueled, super-charged, hypersonic vehicle for even more much needed change.
And if Iran does in fact go back to its old terrorist ways, then Daddy Trump will have no problem reminding them who carries the belt.
So, yes, yes, I know, people are unhappy with the “Iran deal,” but let us give it a chance to bear fruit, if not for years, then at least for the next few months.
Does JD Vance have what it takes to be president?
Like nearly everyone, or probably literally everyone, on my side of the ideological spectrum, I have enjoyed watching JD Vance’s political life grow from infancy to Vice President of the USA over the past few years.
The guy went from rural poor house to successful book author (“Hillbilly Elegy”) to state politics to US Senator to Vice President in a short amount of time. Pretty much the American dream. Most people have to spend a lot of time to get this far in politics.
Another dream: Unlike 95% of former Vice Presidents, Vance has been greatly empowered by President Trump to have a robust public life on key policy issues. Historically, most Vice Presidents are shunted aside, or are given vague ribbon cutting ceremonies at best. Under Trump, Vance has been all over the place, all around the planet, speaking his mind, carrying the administration’s messages on fair trade, free speech and Western Civilization, etc.
Vance has thus gained traction among many on the right, who were unhappy with his past vilification of Trump, which we saw as un-earned and more of a publicity stunt than a legitimate policy critique.
Vance’s throaty America First stance certainly gets people like me standing on our feet in full applause. Over and over, Vance has said what conservatives think has been absent from most Republican leaders (or any other elected officials, for that matter) for decades. So, until a week ago, I and many others in my corner were excited about Vance’s prospects as a 2028 presidential candidate.
And then came Vance’s openly arrogant and pompous declaration about Israel’s control of Judea and Samaria, both the current administrative arrangement and the prospective legal annexation. For a guy like Vance, who earlier this year proudly championed the prospective outright American annexation of Greenland, by legal or military means, and who prides himself on maintaining a rational, logical, linear policy perspective, this statement was a non-sequitor surprise.
There are few if any Americans living in Greenland.
America has never claimed Greenland as the USA has claimed Puerto Rico, Guam, or other territories we captured in war.
Israel is 8,019 square miles in size. Greenland is 836,331 square miles in size, literally over a hundred times the size of Israel. Judea and Samaria are the historic homeland of the Jewish People; they comprise 2,183 square miles, nearly 1/400th the size of Greenland, and are home to about a million Jews.
Many of the current Jewish communities in Judea and Samaria are built on the ancient ruins of former Jewish settlements dating back 4,000 years. Jews living there today are not newcomers to the area. Rather, they are de-colonizing it. Fact check alert: Arabs are from Arabia, Muslims are from Mecca, neither of which are in Judea or Samaria. Muslims and Arabs who live in Judea and Samaria are the colonizers, as they are the colonizers elsewhere across the entire region.
Israel captured Judea and Samaria in a defensive war, and reaffirmed their hold on the area in subsequent defensive wars. To the victor go the spoils of war, in treasure and in land; this is elementary international law. Israel has every right to control or annex Judea and Samaria. Vance himself invokes this very same principle in his argument for America taking over Greenland (which I support).
To watch Vance on camera on this subject is painful. He comes across as a petulant, arrogant bully, back to where he was when he vilified Trump just a few years ago.
Vance actually said that he was “insulted” that Israel’s democratically elected parliament had passed a bill to annex Judea and Samaria. Why would JD Vance feel personally insulted about the sovereign act of a soverign democratic nation fighting for its life that has zero to do with him, he, JD Vance, late of 1794 militarily conquered and European colonized Maumee Indian lands in Ohio?
If Vance is so opposed to Israel being in Judea and Samaria, to which they have a 4,000 year old claim, then is he going to make a big showy statement and give back his Ohio home to the Maumee Indians? We all know the answer to this. Vance likely believes that the conquest of American Indian tribes and the colonization of their lands is settled business.
Does Vance really think that Israel annexing a small area over which it has maintained control for nearly sixty years is going to somehow hurt the United States?! Even a little bit?
From a rational policy perspective, Vance’s blanket statement on Judea and Samaria is a 180 degree deviation from all of his other American policy statements. Perhaps this is attributable to all of the Qatar money pouring into American politics right now. Or maybe it is attributable to the Vatican’s longstanding antipathy towards Jews, Judaism, and the modern state of Israel. Whatever his reasons for his a-historical rules-for-thee-but-not-for-me statement, Vance is way out of step with Ambassador Mike Huckabee, Secretary of State Marco Rubio, and the hardest core of American patriots who feel directly connected to Israel, Judea, and Samaria, and who see Qatar’s cash dump into American politics and universities as a huge threat to Western Civilization.
It makes one wonder if JD Vance has what it takes to be our president. An effective president cannot afford to alienate anyone on his side, at least not for long. Trump can get away with pushy bluster, because he is a likable person with a very long track record of positive achievements in both private enterprise and public office. Sometimes his bluster is just that, bluster, to test the waters.
Conversely, Vance’s personal anger about Israel’s one policy looks the equivalent of Joe Biden’s public “I’ll be damned” brag about corruptly quashing Ukraine’s investigation of Burisma and Hunter Biden. This is not presidential stuff, it is not leadership stuff, sad to say. I hope JD Vance fixes this, not just the policy stuff, but his own public performance, his control of his own personal self.
It is one thing to be a heavily battle scarred Donald John Trump and say sh*t, but to be a relative newcomer overnight rock star like Vance, his strange outburst could and should hurt his prospects.
Racist fake “journalist” attacks Trump in broad daylight
President Trump stepped onto the stage of the National Association of Black Journalists (what if there were a National Association of White Journalists…? Are white journalists not allowed to join the same group as black journalists? Isn’t that exclusionary racism? This whole racial skin color division thing eludes me) the other day, and patiently rebuffed a blatantly racist attack by the openly hostile host, Rachel Scott of ABC “news“, whose unprofessional, disrespectful and confrontational attitude is why the establishment media has lost the American people.
So-called “journalist” Rachel Scott behaved so poorly from the get-go that she left no question in anyone’s mind if she is a politically partisan activist. She is. She is also a white-hating racist. She rapidfire threw lie- bomb after lie-bomb at Trump, and then harshly interrupted her guest whenever he tried to answer her.
To put Rachel Scott’s aggressive behavior in perspective, had the skin colors been reversed, she would have been immediately drummed out of whatever atoms remain of journalism as a recognizable profession. Her hostility was palpable, his disrespect was measurable, and there is no other way to ascribe this unprofessional conduct than sheer hatred. If it would be unacceptable for a white person to treat a black person as Rachel Scott did, then the reverse is also true.
Racism is bad, it is un-American, and it cannot be allowed in polite society. What an embarrassment this event was for the National Association of Black Journalists. Not a professional group, evidently.
For his part, President Trump was incredible. He patiently responded to his vicious antagonist, and quite personally addressed her points head-on. Speaking of skin color, one of the intriguing things that President Trump brought up is how Kamala Harris never identifed as “black” before. As Harris is descended from Asians, whites, and possibly American Indians, with maybe some black Africans in the distant past, and her one ancestor owned the most slaves on Jamaica out of every other slave holder in that island’s history, it surprised Trump to hear the political activist ABC fake news person Rachel Scott call Harris “black.”
And he said so.
Kudos to Trump for being forthright and honest. And he also spoke the truth about having been the best president for American blacks since President Lincoln. When Rachel Scott yet again interjected that it was Lyndon Johnson who signed the Voting Rights Act, Trump was too much of a gentleman to point out that President Lyndon Johnson was a notorious southern racist, and his policies were openly designed to keep American blacks enslaved on the Democrat Plantation for generations to come. Which they have. And it was the Republicans who voted then for civil rights and voting rights for American blacks, while the Democrats voted against them.
What interests me about President Trump’s appearance on enemy territory is how the vast majority of Americans do not give a fig about skin color. I myself have loved women with brown skin, black skin, red skin, white skin, and olive skin, and I have to say that all of my friends feel the way I do – skin color is the least useful indicator of anything important. And yet, racists like Rachel Scott keep trying to whip up racial animus between Americans, all of whom simply want to live in harmony with one another.
Similarly, other racist “journalists” (Democrat Party activists who work in the news business) have accused Trump’s VP nominee JD Vance of being a racist, despite his wife having brown skin and their kids looking quite brown.
It’s weird, to borrow a word from Kacklin’ Kamala, how liberals and Democrats are always racists at heart, and how they just cannot tell the truth.
Thank God America has Donald Trump to say the facts as they are!
