Sunday, February 9, 2014

Current Events - February 9, 2014

NBC hails decades of Soviet Communism as a 'pivotal experiment'

By Joe Newby
During the opening ceremony of the Winter Olympics in Sochi, Russia, NBC whitewashed 70 years of brutal Communist rule when Game of Thrones actor Peter Dinklage called the Soviet era "one of modern history's pivotal experiments," Newsbusters reported Friday.
"Russia overwhelms. Russia mystifies. Russia transcends. Through every stage of its story, it's resisted any notion of limitation. Through every re-invention, only redoubling its desire to cast a towering presence," Dinklage said.
"The empire that ascended to affirm a colossal footprint; the revolution that birthed one of modern history's pivotal experiments. But if politics has long shaped our sense of who they are, it's passion that endures," he added.
Dinklage ignored the history of the totalitarian regime that slaughtered tens of millions of people between 1917 and 1991.
Matthew Balan said it's not the first time NBC lionized the brutal dictatorship.
In 2004, Balan said, Matt Lauer suggested Russians were actually better off living in the far-left regime.
"We're gonna be talking about the New Russia, how a few people are doing very well and the fear that others are being left very far behind....Russia's rush to capitalism left the vast majority scrambling to survive. For many, life is worse than it was in Soviet times," he said.

NBC Edits Out IOC Anti-Discrimination Statement From Opening Ceremony

 Russia's anti-gay laws have been a major focus in the lead-up to the Olympic Winter Games in Sochi, and during his address at today's opening ceremony IOC president Thomas Bach made a strong statement against "any form of discrimination" and in favor of tolerance. Viewers worldwide heard the statement; NBC viewers in the U.S. did not, because the network edited it out.

There are still 4 million fewer full-time jobs in America than before the Great Recession

By James Pethokoukis
...Here is a stat, reflected in the above chart, to think about: Before the Great Recession, there were 122 million full-time jobs in America. Now 4 1/2 years after its end, there are still just 118 million full-time jobs in America despite a labor force that is 1.6 million larger and a nonjailed, nonmilitary adult working-age population that is 14 million larger.

By Walter Hudson
Since he first took office in 2009, President Barack Obama has consistently invited comparisons between his vision for America and the world of Ayn Rand’s Atlas Shrugged. In particular, the president has frequently attracted references to Directive 10-289, a government edict in the novel which forbids hiring and firing, mandates production, and seizes patents.
The explicit realization of that directive approaches with each new abuse and usurpation committed by the administration. Now, after the president brazenly declared his intention to defy the rule of law and craft legislation from the Oval Office via executive order, Democratic Congresswoman Sheila Jackson Lee conspires with fellow members of a “Full Employment Caucus” to tee up the tyranny. This from the Washington Times:

She said at a recent press conference reported by The Daily Mail that the caucus members will work hard to “give President Obama a number of executive orders that he can sign with pride and strength. In fact, I think that should be our number one agenda. Let’s write up these executive orders – draft them, of course – and ask the president to stand with us on full employment.”
It’s about time. The only real question is why it has taken so long for the president to come to our aid with the stoke of his magic pen.
That might have been sarcasm, which might have been funny were its object not so deadly serious. We have a sitting president and a caucus of congresspeople who believe jobs may be royally decreed.
True, this does not represent an ideological shift from the past. The Left has always asserted that government can create jobs. However, this new tact of stripping the process down to an executive order leaves the folly more naked than before.
Indeed, if jobs come from executive orders, what have we been waiting for? How bad was the president going to let things get before rescuing the economy with a piece of paper?
After Sheila Jackson Lee secures full employment, perhaps she can ask the Wizard for a brain.

Subsidies will set you free

By James Longstreet
If you are making an income that is low enough, you are entitled to a substantial health insurance subsidy.  But don't seek any more income, for it may cost you dearly.  Stay put, be static.  If for example, you are making 29K a year, and are getting free health insurance and you make the mistake of making 36K, you will have actually hurt your condition.  Though you have earned 7K more, you have lost your 10K a year insurance subsidy. You now pay for what you had for free, and you are now in a higher tax bracket.
You have gone backwards.  Is that some type of "freedom"?  It seems a ceiling on achievement or at least an impediment in any attempt to advance oneself.
Freedom indeed.  Like the freedom of being forced to join a union, or at least have your dues extracted from your check?  Freedom to choose your health insurance...from four metallic choices? 
As Johan Goldberg notes,

"Government gives you freedom by giving you stuff. This is the logic that says a refusal to subsidize art is censorship; that the failure to provide housing is the same as denying it; that people have a right to have things provided for them they are unwilling to earn themselves. Or as FDR said "necessitous men are not free men." So when the government gives you stuff you need (or merely want) it is setting you free."
...Nancy and Harry and Carney and the like are pleased that what they refer to "job lock" has been lifted from the citizenry. What has been implemented, however, is "subsidy lock".  Don't move, don't will cost you. Subsidies will make you free. Stay put, the gifts are in the mail box (or auto deposit). Paint, write poetry and vote Democratic. Feel free yet?

The Economist Who Exposed ObamaCare

The Chicago professor examined the law's incentives for the poor not to get a job or work harder, and this week Beltway budgeteers agreed.

By Joseph Rago
...[economist Casey Mulligan] adds: "I can understand something like cigarettes and people believe that there's too much smoking, so we put a tax on cigarettes, so people smoke less, and we say that's a good thing. OK. But are we saying we were working too much before? Is that the new argument? I mean make up your mind. We've been complaining for six years now that there's not enough work being done. . . . Even before the recession there was too little work in the economy. Now all of a sudden we wake up and say we're glad that people are working less? We're pursuing our dreams?"
The larger betrayal, Mr. Mulligan argues, is that the same economists now praising the great shrinking workforce used to claim that ObamaCare would expand the labor market.
He points to a 2011 letter organized by Harvard's David Cutler and the University of Chicago's Harold Pollack, signed by dozens of left-leaning economists including Nobel laureates, stating "our strong conclusion" that ObamaCare will strengthen the economy and create 250,000 to 400,000 jobs annually. (Mr. Cutler has since qualified and walked back some of his claims.)
"Why didn't they say, no, we didn't mean the labor market's going to get bigger. We mean it's going to get smaller in a good way," Mr. Mulligan wonders. "I'm unhappy with that, to be honest, as an American, as an economist. Those kind of conclusions are tarnishing the field of economics, which is a great, maybe the greatest, field. They're sure not making it look good by doing stuff like that."
....One major risk is slower economic growth over time as people leave the workforce and contribute less to national prosperity. Another is that social programs with high marginal rates end up perpetuating the problems they're supposed to be alleviating.
So amid the current wave of liberal ObamaCare denial about these realities, how did Mr. Mulligan end up conducting such "unconventional" research?
"Unconventional?" he asks with more than a little disbelief. "It's not unconventional at all. The critique I get is that it's not complicated enough."
Well, then how come the CBO's adoption of his insights is causing such a ruckus?
"I would phrase the question a little differently," Mr. Mulligan responds, "which is: Why didn't conventional economic analysis make its way to Washington? Why was I the only delivery boy? Why wasn't there a laundry list?" The charitable explanation, he says, is that there was "a general lack of awareness" and economists simply didn't realize everything that government was doing to undermine incentives for work. "You have to dig into it and see it," he explains. "The Affordable Care Act's not going to come and shake you out of your bed and say, 'Look what's in me.' "
Judging by their reaction to the CBO report, the less charitable explanation is that liberals would have preferred that the public never found out.
By Robert Berry
Having been dormant for centuries, a potent section in the U.S. Constitution is now in the minds and on the lips of a new generation of reformers who are determined to keep the nation out of an abyss.  As America stares hard at the darkness ahead, the new reformers have begun to popularize this forgotten constitutional provision that might well become Official Washington's undoing.

The problem, which hardly needs stating, is that the federal government has become the very monster the founders anticipated.  Quite likely, the beast we face is far beyond anything that could have been imagined by the founding generation.  Even today it is hard to adequately comprehend the omnipresent and, thanks to the NSA, omniscient federal menace that overhangs every aspect of life in 21st-century America.

The founders' concern that power would be consolidated at the federal level is dealt with in Article V of the U.S. Constitution. 
...In 2009, an academic from the University of Montana was surveying opportunities for research.  Of particular interest to Professor Robert G. Natelson were areas of constitutional scholarship characterized by a scarcity of research, poor research, or, optimally, both.  
Intrigued by the vestigial Convention for Proposing Amendments mentioned in Article V, Natelson was struck by the paucity of modern-day scholarship on the topic despite an abundance of original source material.

Quietly, he set to work.

Before long, Natelson had acquired nearly all of the journals of founding-era conventions.  This was added to his existing collection of material from each state's ratification convention as each considered whether or not to approve the proposed 1787 constitution.  A picture of early American convention tradition began to emerge. 

Casting a wider net, he pulled in over 40 generally neglected Article V court decisions, some of which had been argued before the Supreme Court.  In a series of publications, Natelson churned out his findings (here, here, and here), which surprised many -- including himself. 

The research quickly became the gold standard of scholarship about the process, known formally as the "State-Application-and-Convention" method of amending the Constitution. 

Natelson held that, far from being a self-destruct mechanism, the founders meant for the process to be used in parallel to the congressional method as yet another "check and balance" within the framework of the newly constituted federal government.

Most importantly, Natelson drew a strong distinction between the assembly mentioned in Article V and the oft-mentioned Constitutional Convention.  For this reason, he is quick to correct anyone mistakenly referring to the Convention for Proposing Amendments as a "Constitutional Convention." 

Natelson's research trove smashed the conspiracy theories of the 1980s and has become the intellectual base of the resurgent Article V movement that has been joined by Levin and other prominent reformers.  When the history is written, it will record that this was the moment the Article V movement achieved critical mass. 

The new reformers would do well to press on with the case for state-initiated amendments and ignore the tired conspiracy theories of the past.  Having been marginalized to an almost comic degree, the foes of yesterday have been effectively dispatched.

When a battle is won, it is wise to move to the next battle, for the waiting opponent is formidable and lives on Capitol Hill.

President Obama’s magic words and numbers

By George F Will
Barack Obama, the first president shaped by the celebratory culture in which every child who plays soccer gets a trophy and the first whose campaign speeches were his qualification for the office, perhaps should not be blamed for thinking that saying things is tantamount to accomplishing things, and that good intentions are good deeds. So, his presidency is useful after all, because it illustrates the perils of government run by believers in magic words and numbers.
...Many of the words and numbers bandied by Obama and his administration may reflect an honest belief that the world is whatever well-intentioned people like them say about it. So, Obama’s critics should reconsider their assumption that he is cynical. It is his sincerity that is scary. 

Sounds Familiar

A Beltway cliché becomes an ObamaCare excuse.

By James Taranto
...But we want to focus on that "more time with your family." Krugman's voice turns out to be but one in a vast chorus of ObamaCare apologists singing that refrain.

E.J. Dionne, Washington Post: "Oh my God, say opponents of the ACA, here is the government encouraging sloth! That's true only if you wish to take away the choices the law gives that 64-year-old or to those moms and dads looking for more time to care for their children. Many on the right love family values until they are taken seriously enough to involve giving parents/workers more control over their lives."

Ron Fournier, National Journal: "The GOP has seized on CBO's conclusion that the equivalent of more than 2 million Americans would use Obamacare subsidies to leave the workforce. No longer tied to jobs merely to cling to health insurance, some people will retire early, work part time, start a business, or spend more time with their families."

Eric Boehlert, MediaMutters (on Twitter): "CBO: Obamacare will give workers more choices; some workers might chose [sic] to work less to spend more time w/ families....RW condemns as awful?" (Beats us what radiological warfare has to do with anything.)

Salon's Alex Pareene is so excited, he wants to expand the welfare state even more: "Universal income and healthcare won't create a Marxist (or even Keynesian) utopia of leisure. . . . But it'd give people the ability to spend more time with their families, to enrich themselves, to get educated, and even to just [futz] around a little more."

In January 2012, Bill Daley resigned after a year as White House chief of staff. In explaining his departure, the Washington Post noted that he "never seemed comfortable in the job," that he "struggled to develop relations with members of both houses of Congress," and that "after he [had] relinquished day-to-day operations to senior adviser Pete Rouse in the fall, his role seemed significantly reduced."

But Daley's public explanation cited none of those reasons. Instead, as the Post's Karen Tumulty wrote at the time, "we have once again been handed the cliched spend-more-time-with-his-family rationale":

When did this start? As best I can tell, it goes at least as far back as Watergate, when John Mitchell used it as his reason for resigning from the Committee to Re-elect the President. And we all know how that one ended up . . .

In all the years I've been in Washington, the only person I can remember sounding even remotely credible saying that was George W. Bush adviser Karen Hughes.

Her colleague Melinda Henneberger replied by listing nine others who'd offered the same excuse without credibility, from then-Sen. Ben Nelson of Nebraska, an almost certain 2012 loser owing to his vote in favor of ObamaCare, to Claude Allen, "the George W. Bush White House staffer who was arrested for felony theft soon after announcing he was leaving to spend more time with his nearest and dearest."

Henneberger came up with a few counterexamples, people who really did seem to be leaving their jobs to spend more time with their families: astronaut Mark Kelly (Gabrielle Giffords's husband), Justice Sandra Day O'Connor (whose husband was in a nursing home) and Anna Quindlen, a long-ago New York Times columnist.

The more-time-with-my-family excuse is not unique to the political class. It's also often heard from sports figures and corporate executives, who, like politicians, face fierce competition and frequent turnover. The Onion has spoofed it at least four times, three in a football context: "Junior Seau Retires to Spend More Time Tackling His Kids," "Tom Coughlin Retires From Family to Spend More Time With Team," "Justice Stevens Retires to Spend More Time Dying in Front of Family" and "Peewee Football Player Retires to Spend More Time With His Mom And Dad." And last year The Wall Street Journal's John Bussey played a sincere family-motivated retirement as a man-bites-dog story: "CEO Quits to Spend Time With Family--Really."

"People who really do decide, as Quindlen put it, that you might be able to have it all, just not all at the same time, are undermined by the fibbers," Henneberger observed back in 2012. Most of the time when someone says he's leaving a job to spend more time with his family, he does so in order to avoid acknowledging that, for one reason or another, he has failed.

It is therefore reasonable to construe the deployment of this excuse by Krugman, Dionne, Fournier and the others as further evidence that ObamaCare is a failing policy.

Does America Still Want To Prosper?

By Austin Hill
“Completing this form is a critical start to completing your education,” noted First Lady Michelle Obama. It was Wednesday February 5, and she had traveled from the confines of the White House to a nearby Virginia high school to lecture students on applying for “free” federal financial aid for college.
“You don’t have to be the valedictorian” Mrs. Obama continued. “You don’t have to major in a certain subject. You don’t even have to be at the very bottom of the income ladder to receive the money. It’s the single most important thing you can do for your future.”
Determining the “single most important thing” for a young person’s future is a task that might otherwise make parents, teachers and counselors pause and contemplate. But for the wife of our current President the answer is obvious: get your “free” government handout.
The First Lady’s lecture came at an appropriate time. One day prior to her Virginia jaunt a report was released from the Congressional Budget Office (“CBO”) estimating that over the next decade the President’s signature healthcare reform law will likely incentivize some 2.4 million Americans to take on a lifestyle of no longer working, preferring instead to enjoy Obamacare’s expanded Medicaid and insurance subsidies (and perhaps enjoying “free” food stamps, subsidized mobile phones, and a bevy of other perks from our government).
White House Press Spokesperson Jay Carney announced at his daily briefing “Claims that the Affordable Care Act hurts jobs are simply belied by the facts…” Senate Majority Leader Harry Reid (D-Nevada) celebrated people leaving the workforce noting, “we live in a country where we should be free agents. People can do what they want.” Congresswoman Gwen Moore (D-Wisconsin) assured MSNBC viewers that the only problem with Obamacare is that “Republicans are pathetic.”
Purveyors of the Obama agenda will continue defending and dismissing. That doesn’t change America’s reality: the President that we, the people have twice elected has implemented domestic policies that will eventually bankrupt us. No individual or family or household or company can consume more than it spends. No national government can do that either, yet American voters have continued to elect public officials - the President among them - who neither believe this nor understand it. Our current trajectory will lead all of America to a place of greater despair and less prosperity for all.

Why The Left Alters Reality

By Kevin McCullough
...In the age of modern media, it wasn't even 24 hours before we knew that Putin had been snowed. And the producers have since confessed to sending the rehearsal footage to the Russian feed the second they realized the malfunction was occurring in the Olympic stadium.
The obvious questions come to mind, "Why did they send the altered feed to Putin's suite? Why did they fear Putin would see the actual truth? And what did they fear would happen if he did?"
The idea in the modern era, that members of a state run media group would live in fear for their life or livelihood because of something that could easily be a mechanical error harkens us back to Cold War era Soviet stories of people who merely "disappeared."
Or as NBC's Matt Lauer kept saying "were lost" in the "era of industrialization." Yeah... speaking of snow-jobs...
No Matt Lauer, the Soviet Union didn't "lose" people or "misplace" them or "forget where they were."
A hardened leftist tyrant who came to power in the 1920's, spent a few years consolidating power into the hands of a very limited few, who also "fundamentally transformed" his nation had those people extradited to regions of Russia that were otherwise uninhabitable, or he had them executed.
People that didn't conform to his ideas, realities, and "facts" were marginalized, isolated, and eventually dealt with.
Evidently that strict fear of shaking the good will or reality of Russia's top leadership still exists.
But is America that far behind them?
We have a media complex that reports the administration's view on almost all things without much variance. The handful of actual outlets that report actual facts that vary from the administration's talking points are isolated and marginalized. 
...Putin is a former KGB agent and soviet era operative. A believer in centralized control, state-based control over the ways and means of life, not truly accountable to the people, and one that sees his role as vital to the advancement of a state-centric system to "solve" the "problems" his people face. Wildly so does President Obama and his operatives.
They neither feel responsible to tell their people the truth, nor do the people who are their subjects believe such leaders are capable of being told the truth.
This is certainly true about federally controlled healthcare programs that fail on every level. It's true about protecting our ambassadors when under attack by terrorist operatives in the Middle East. And evidently it's true about much smaller things.
Even about things as insignificant as an Olympic snowflake that doesn't quite open.

Cronyism: Obama Appoints 23 Major Donors as Unqualified U.S. Ambassadors

It’s no surprise that cronyism is alive and well in the Obama administration, despite the president alleging there hasn’t been a “smidgen of corruption” under his watch.
President Obama’s latest example of unethical behavior falls within his appointments.
Obama has recently appointed 23 ambassadors with significant ties to his presidential election campaigns. News outlets have spotlighted the hasty appointments as many confirmation hearings showed the ambassadors had little to no qualifications for the positions.
Noah Bryson Mamet raised $500,000 for Obama and was recently appointed as ambassador to Argentina. Today, news emerged that Mamet has never even been to Argentina.
Likewise, George Tsunis was tapped for the ambassadorship in Norway after raising $1.3 million for Obama and Colleen Bradley Bell, who raised, $800,000 for the president, was appointed for the position in Hungary.
Last week, former Sen. Max Baucus (D-MT) was appointed ambassador to China and in his
confirmation hearing said, “I’m no real expert on China.”
According to the Center for Public Integrity, the 23 ambassadors Obama has chosen have raised a combined total of $16.1 million for him since 2007.
Do you happen to smell a “smidgen of corruption?” I DO.

PK'S NOTE: Reminder: many liberal groups were “targeted” like Tea Party groups? There were 20 liberal groups who applied for tax-exempt status during the period of time in question and only six were singled out for special treatment.
Meanwhile, all 292 conservative groups came in for special scrutiny.

Tax Attorney Destroys Obama Over Continued IRS Targeting Scandal (Video)

 Tax attorney Cleta Mitchell absolutely destroys Obama’s lies to the American people when he claimed that bone-headed bureaucrats in some remote office was responsible for the targeting of Tea Party, Patriot and conservative groups by the IRS.
She makes three clear points, then expands and proves her case in front of Congress in the video below.
Everything Obama has uttered in regards to this massive IRS targeting scandal has been a huge lie and the people of the US need to hear it, know it and act accordingly.
Via the video details:
“I want to make three primary points here. First, the IRS scandal is real. It’s not pretend, it’s real. Number two, the IRS scandal is not just a bunch of bone-headed bureaucrats in some remote office contrary to what the President of the United States told the American People on Sunday. And, number 3, the IRS scandal is not over. It is continuing to this day. And, the Department of Justice Investigation is a sham. It is a nonexistent investigation.”

Dems Trying to Blame IRS IG for Targeting Scandal

 By Rick Moran
This is really quite the novel approach to the IRS targeting scandal by congressional Democrats.
Seeking to change the narrative in order to get on top of scandal, Democrats have hit upon the idea to blame the IRS Inspector General, Russell George, for the scandal getting out of hand.
How do they figure that? It appears that many Democrats were unhappy with Mr. George’s initial report on the scandal, believing it to be “misleading.” Mmmkay, whatever. But now they’ve got a mind to file an ethics complaint against George because they think he is conspiring with Darrell Issa’s oversight committee to make the Democrats look bad and the IRS scandal worse than it really is.
...The Democrats might have a point about George meeting separately with Issa and the Republicans. But I’ll bet it’s not unprecedented for an IG to discuss his report with the majority alone.
The Obama administration has well-documented problems with assertive inspector generals, so this kind of pushback is to be expected from Hill Democrats. It’s an attempt to smear the IRS inspector general and only shows how desperate the Democrats have become. It’s a hail mary pass that is going to fall incomplete in the end zone.

NAACP requires marchers protesting North Carolina voter ID law TO SHOW PHOTO ID

By Katie McHugh
North Carolinians marching to protest voter-ID laws must present a valid photo ID to participate in an NAACP-hosted protest against voter-ID laws in Raleigh on Saturday.

The central claim among the protesters is that the  voter-ID laws disenfranchise certain segments of the voting population, particularly minority voters and poor voters.
According to official NAACP flyers passed out at the rally, protesters must carry the precise kind of ID that they would be expected to present at the voting booth.
...Chairman of the House Elections Committee and North Carolina Republican state Rep. David Lewis criticized  the protesters for their “hypocrisy.”

“I find it extremely hypocritical that when nearly 70 percent of North Carolinians across all political spectrums support the idea that one present photo identification when going to the polls, the NC NAACP has filed suit in court to block this common-sense idea,” said Lewis in a statement to The Daily Caller.  “However, the NC NAACP requires their protesters to maintain valid photo identification on their person throughout the march. The idea that Chairman William Barber and his followers find it more important to carry their photo identification with them when marching than when electing the President of the United States is reprehensible.”
By Jason Howerton
During a tense exchange on Friday’s “The O’Reilly Factor,” Geraldo Rivera accused Bill O’Reilly of stripping President Barack Obama of his “majesty” during his highly-watched Super Bowl interview.
Rivera said the president wasn’t given the respect he deserves and as a result the interview came off as the “President of Most of the White Guys of America,” O’Reilly, versus the president of “almost everyone else.” He also criticized the TV host for referring to Obama as a “community organizer.”
“It’s not my job to be a social scientist or please you, Geraldo Rivera, who’s looking more like a cartel member every day,” O’Reilly joked. “My job is to get information. That’s my job. I got it. And I asked him the tough questions that nobody else — no one — has asked him.”
“What you did was strip him of his majesty, so to speak,” Rivera replied.
“I don’t think he has majesty! He’s not a king!” O’Reilly said, adding that he respects the office of the presidency but presidents still need to be held accountable.
By Sharona Schwartz
The American delegation attending a ceremony in honor of Tunisia’s new constitution walked out after Iran’s parliament speaker called Israel a “cancer” of the region and accused the U.S. of devastating so-called Arab Spring revolutions.
“Even after the revolutions that happened in the region, the US and Israel tried to divert and devastate some of the revolutions so that Israel can benefit,” speaker of the Iranian parliament Ali Larijani said according to Iran’s official Press TV
The U.S. embassy in Tunis said in a statement after the delegation left in protest.
“What was intended to be a ceremony honoring Tunisia’s achievements was used by the Iranian representative as a platform to denounce the United States,” it said.
...At his weekly cabinet meeting on Sunday, Israeli Prime Minister Benjamin Netanyahu suggested that the decision by the Obama administration and European allies to ease sanctions on Iran have emboldened Iran to ratchet up its belligerent stance.
“The international easing of the sanctions against Iran have not led Iran to moderate its international aggression, the complete opposite has occurred,” Netanyahu said.
“The Iranian Foreign Minister recently met with the head of Islamic Jihad, Iran is continuing to supply terrorist organizations with deadly weapons, Iran continues to be complicit in massacres in Syria and to all this may be added the leader of Iran’s crude and sharp attack against the US, alongside sending warships to the Atlantic Ocean,” Netanyahu said according to a transcript posted on the Prime Minister’s Office website. “What is happening here is that the international community has reduced the sanctions on Iran and Iran is stepping up its international aggression. This is the real result of the steps up until now.”

No comments: