Teddy Roosevelt's Realpolitik

3 prisoners came home from North Korea with Pompeo.  NPR and the other MSM outlets were totally incapable of saying "congratulations" to Trump and Pompeo.  Instead, they've been trying to find ways to "suspect NORK of bad intentions": maybe this is all Trump will get, etc.

Amazing.

Well, not really.

Meanwhile, the MSM's "NUCLEAR WAR WITH IRAN!!!!PANIC!!!OMG!!!" drumbeat is getting louder and louder.

What the MSM doesn't understand is that Iran came to the table because of sanctions, not because they were being browbeaten by Obama (um... heh...).  They left the table because they were paid (off) by Obama - whose envoy, Kerry, sent pallets of cash (yes, really, pallets of cash) and came home empty-handed.  At least 3 Americans were left behind as hostages in Iran.

A hostage situation with a multi-billion dollar payoff - and Obama didn't even get the hostages back.

Once upon a time, there was a TV show named Star Trek.  Don't laugh: some of the writers had already "made their bones" as bonafide published authors in fiction & science fiction.  In one episode, Kirk is being held hostage by a government that wants to, er, put Kirk "out to stud", so to speak.  In a brilliant bit of script writing, Nimoy (as Spock) makes the following observation:

"We must acknowledge once and for all that the purpose of diplomacy is to prolong a crisis."

Sometimes you have to stop trying to speak softly... and start swinging TDR's "big stick".

Trump, whose reputation as a "disruptor" is well earned, has been using his disruptive influence and (not really) unpredictable nature to put America's opponents off-balance.  As a partial result, Kim sent home 3 hostages without anything more than a promise for a possible meeting.  That's a foreign-policy success, no matter how you cut it.

Iran is a different situation.

I think that the Iranian regime might fall by the end of this year,.  It already has serious domestic problems and significant internal unrest.  Iran's economy has become so resource-stretched with its attempts to "change the face of the Middle East" that its financial footings are upside-down: it can't sell enough oil to support all of its anti-peace initiatives.  There is widespread unemployment, modern goods are becoming impossible to get, and inflation is in (at least) double-digits per quarter.

And now, with Trump pulling out of Iran's blackmail scheme - aka the JCPOA - Iran is looking straight at another set of sanctions.  And the power of those sanctions is strong because they threaten to end business relationships between the US and any country or corporation that does business with Iran.  It's a chain reaction: if a company in Germany sells to Iran, they will be banned from selling to the US.

If you think that's not a threat, think about this: between the US and Iran, which country has a strong economy capable of paying its bills?  And which country do you really want to do business with on a long-term basis?

Exactly.

The US spent the USSR into bankruptcy.  The USSR fell because it had no financial or political support from member countries, and internal disharmony was tearing it apart.  Reagan and Gorbachev were "there at the end": Reagan pushed the last domino over and the USSR fell.  Gorbachev allowed a "soft landing" rather than starting a nuclear war.  Together, they both realized the futility of continuing the cold war.  The time had come to "move on" - they both realized it and ran with it.

The difference between the USSR and Iran is that Iranian Mullahs look forward to being martyrs to the cause of Islam.  But they and their hard-core supporters are the only ones looking forward to the end of the world and a reward in paradise.  If you look beyond Iran, you find that the Iranian Mullahs are widely despised and hated for spreading terrorism and endangering everyone - Muslim and non-Muslim alike.

Yes, there are pockets of Muslims whose core belief is to "be a martyr to Islam!",but they are being depleted through their own suicidal activities.  Rather than building up huge armies of new followers, they're becoming outcasts and are being abandoned - by Muslims and no-Muslims alike.

Islam may still be an actively anti-modern religion, but so was Christianity - in the Middle Ages.  Christianity went through The Reformation, and the "murder all the pagans everywhere" ethic was abandoned in favor of teachings that mostly concentrated on living in peace (the exceptions prove the rule - again).

Islam has not yet undergone its own Reformation, but there are true Islamic moderates who actively seek a way to put aside the Qu'ran's demands to "kill the unbelievers" and concentrate on teachings about peace.

There's a reason that G-D made the Hebrew slaves wander in the desert for 40 years.  He wanted the generation who had grown up as slaves, and who could only think of themselves as slaves, to die off.  In the movie "Look Who's Coming To Dinner", Sidney Poitier tells his father "You think of yourself as a black man.  I think of myself as a man".  Look at Sharpton and the other black activists of his generation, most of whom are incapable and/or unwilling to acknowledge that they are the ones keeping race hatred alive.

It takes time for things to change.  But, change will happen.  It's inevitable.  It's the primary process of life.  Change is unstoppable.

There are very few American Muslims who came here legally, became citizens, and want to commit Jihad.  The overwhelming majority came here to get away from the requirement to "kill thy neighbor" and just want to live peaceful and quiet lives (once again, the exceptions prove the rule).  Yes, there are organizations - such as CAIR - that aim to promote Islamic-based hatred of nonbelievers, just as there are Sharptons who want to keep race hatred alive.  But they are the exceptions - there are far more American Mullahs who love America and preach a quiet and peaceful life.

Just as with Christianity, Islam needs a Reformation.  It will happen to American Muslims.  It's already happening to them.  I have met some local Muslims (mostly at cultural events) and I have politely asked questions.  They all universally answer that they just want to be left in peace - to live quiet lives where they believe they are safe from the secret police and the incredibly evil "if you are a true Muslim" demands from fundamentalists.  Talk to some of the Somali immigrants (I've met many at cultural events).  They're some of the nicest folks you'll meet, and most will make amazing American citizens.

It is the average American Muslim who most fears what Iran is teaching the world about Islam, and who would be the first to beg the Iranian Muslims to stop preaching hatred and war.

The day of the Iranian Reformation is coming.  And when it does, the average Iranian will be glad to rid Iran of nukes, terrorist activities, and the evils of Muslim fundamentalists.

Persecution of the Law-Abiding

I'm sure you heard about Kyle Kashuv, one of the "Parkland" students, being interrogated by school administrators after posting a picture of himself at a gun range with his father (and being called a Nazi by one of his teachers).  Now, another school in the US (Lacey, NJ) may have disciplined two student for posting pictures of safe gun use at a range during non-school hours.  The circumstances of the NJ students is unclear, but it appears that they were suspended and, after legal threats, the suspension was wiped from their records.

The term I'm going to use for both of these incidents is "malicious persecution".

It's one thing for schools to be upset about wrongful or illegal student actions on school property, whether those actions were taken during school hours or not.  And a second thing for schools to be upset about students committing crimes during non-school hours.  In both cases, I would require definitive proof that the students did indeed commit the offenses.  And if the proof existed, I would have no problem with disciplinary action.

But when a student is safely and properly exercising a Constitutional right during non-school hours, in the proper venue, and with competent adult supervision, the school administrators need to FOAD learn to live with it.  I understand that guns are a hot topic right now, and that the overwhelmingly liberal teachers' unions are vehemently anti-gun.  Too many ideologically-driven grade school teachers are willing to preach against Constitutional rights and spend classroom time ranting about how evil guns are.  The result is the intentional miseducation of their students.

Punishing students for exercising their Constitutional rights is wrong - and, if I had anything to do with it, I would censure, suspend, or fire any school administrators who are overstepping their bounds in order to make a political point.  In loco parentis does not mean usurping and, in the case of Kyle Kashuv, completely ignoring the will of the real parents while insulting both the children and the parents.

The overwhelming number of grade school teachers do the job they were hired to do: they teach.  But there are "bad apples" in that barrel too.

So, a word to those "bad apples":  stop forcing your personal political views on students.  Your job is not indoctrination: it is education.  These two concepts do not belong together in a grade-school classroom.

And here's a thought for you:

If you don't think anyone under 21 is mature enough to own a rifle, how can you then say that those same under-21 individuals have "something valuable to say"?  Is it possible that they're merely repeating what you have been saying, and doing it without understanding why you're saying it?

And, for that matter, is it possible that you're merely repeating what others have been saying, and - as an adult capable of mature and logical reasoning - you're doing it without understanding what you're talking about?