I Ordered

G7 Breakout Session: “One Bribe One Loan”

It does not take a deep geopolitical weed-walker to see the background for inviting the African delegation to the Biarritz summit.  Here we see the the G7 working session group on ‘partnerships with Africa‘:

What we don’t see in this picture is the main reason for the meeting, the 800lb panda in the room; all of these non-G7 members and meeting participants have been previously exposed to the One-Belt One-Road influence of Chinese Chairman Xi Jinping.

Combine World Bank President David Malpass into the equation, a direct U.S. nomination by President Trump now in place; mix in the visibility of Australian Prime Minister Scott Morrison; and then recognize the sudden appearance of Sebastian Pinera from Chile and Prime Minister Narendra Modi from India; and the picture of a multi-continental meeting to discuss the potential downstream ramifications of President Trump confronting China becomes visible.

It’s all about the economics folks…

A big expansion from the traditional group of seven.  India, Australia, Asia, Europe, Africa, North America and South America are all represented at the summit today. 

Twitter Brings Its Wrath to..

https://www.redstate.com/alexparker/2019/08/25/twitter-brings-its-wrath-to-the-obamas-front-door-a-15-million-one-on-marthas-vineyard-didnt-he-say-to-spread-the-wealth/

Twitter Brings Its Wrath to the Obamas' Front Door 

a $15 Million One on Martha's Vineyard. 

Didn't He Say to Spread the Wealth?

Alex Parker

Obama’s presidency wasn’t filled with the championing of Americans’ success.

He was more of a “You didn’t build that” kinda guy.

Here’s another quote, and fairly in context:

“Now, what we’re doing, I want to be clear, we’re not trying to push financial reform because we begrudge success that’s fairly earned. I mean, I do think at a certain point, you’ve made enough money.”

And:

“It’s not that I want to punish your success, I just want to make sure that everybody who is behind you, that they’ve got a chance at success, too. My attitude is that if the economy’s good for folks from the bottom up, it’s going be good for everybody. … [I] think when you spread the wealth around, it’s good for everybody.”

It should be noted that “spreading the wealth around” is done by taking wealth from the wealthy and giving it others.

Has Barack personally spread it around enough? He’s reportedly worth $70 million; how ’bout you?

The Obamas are buying a 6,900 square-foot beachfront spread on Martha’s Vineyard worth a cool $15 mil.

TMZ reports:

The former Prez and First Lady have been renting the house this summer and loved it so much, we’ve learned they made an offer. The property is listed at $14,850,000. Our sources say they’re paying less, but we don’t know how much.

Maybe they’re only paying $199,200 — that’s the median price of a home in the U.S.

But if they’re paying a whole lot more, people on the web have some things to say. 

Right. That house’ll be under water within 12 years. On the upside, though, all of life on earth will have been exterminated. Because of your excesses. So it won’t really matter.

To be clear, if someone has millions of dollars, I think they should enjoy it. Buy a big house — one built for a king. Even though you didn’t build that.

-ALEX

Relevant RedState links in this article: here and here.

Discuss G7 Trade and Economics…

Treasury Secretary Steven Mnuchin and National Economic Council Director Larry Kudlow discuss the ongoing trade and economic discussions amid the G7 summit in  France.  The G7 was originally formed to address economic issues amid the top industrial economies. President Trump has been trying to return to that focus. 

Secretary Mnuchin did a good job knocking back the narrative gnats.  

 

Trump dampens Macron optimism on Iran talks

August 25, 2019
By Jeff Mason and Michel Rose
BIARRITZ, France (Reuters) – U.S. President Donald Trump appeared to brush aside French efforts to mediate with Iran on Sunday, saying that while he was happy for President Emmanuel Macron to reach out to Tehran to defuse tensions he would carry on with his own initiatives.
European leaders have struggled to tamp down the brewing confrontation between Iran and the United States since Trump pulled his country out of Iran’s internationally-brokered 2015 nuclear deal and reimposed sanctions on the Iranian economy.
Macron, who has pushed mediation efforts in recent weeks to avoid a further deterioration in the region, had told LCI television that the G7 had agreed on joint action on Iran.
The French presidency said G7 leaders had even agreed that Macron should hold talks and pass on messages to Iran after they discussed the issue over dinner at a summit in southwestern France on Saturday evening.
However, Trump, who has pushed a maximum pressure policy on Iran, pushed back.
Asked if he had signed off on a statement that Macron intends to give on behalf of the G7 on Iran, Trump said:
“I haven’t discussed this. No I haven’t,” he told reporters, adding that Macron and Japanese Prime Minister Shinzo Abe were free to talk to Iran.
“We’ll do our own outreach, but, you know, I can’t stop people from talking. If they want to talk, they can talk.”

Macron, who has taken the lead to defuse tensions fearing that a collapse of the nuclear deal could set ablaze the Middle East, met Iranian Foreign Minister Mohammad Javad Zarif on Friday. The aim was to discuss proposals that could ease the crisis, including the idea of reducing some U.S. sanctions or providing Iran with an economic compensation mechanism.
Macron appeared to backtrack on his own team’s comments later, saying there was no formal mandate from the G7 leaders to pass a message to Iran.

Highlighting just how difficult agreeing on concrete measures between allies is, Macron said the leaders’ views had converged on not wanting Iran to acquire a nuclear bomb and ensuring peace and security in the Middle East.
He was supposed to discuss those ideas with Trump on the sidelines of the G7, which also comprises Britain, Germany, Italy, Canada, Japan and the EU.
“Everyone wants to avoid a conflict, Donald Trump was extremely clear on that point,” Macron told LCI.

“We have to continue to take initiatives and in the coming weeks that on the one hand there are no more Iranian decisions that contradict this objective and that we open new negotiations,” Macron said without giving details.
In response to the tougher U.S. sanctions and what it says is the inability of European powers party to the deal – France, Britain and Germany, to compensate it for its lost oil revenue, Tehran has responded with a series of moves, including retreating from some of its commitments to limit its nuclear activity made under the deal.
The United States has made no indication it will ease any sanctions and it is unclear what kind of compensation mechanism Macron wants to offer Iran given at this stage a proposed trade channel for humanitarian and food exchanges with Iran is still not operational.
Macron has also said that in return for any concessions he would expect Iran to comply fully with the nuclear deal and for Iran to engage in new negotiations that would include its ballistic missile program and regional activities.
 https://www.oann.com/trump-dampens-macron-optimism-on-iran-talks/

Liberal hysteria on guns obscures the real enemy

Article by Martin Marcus in "The American Thinker":

In the wake of recent terrorist attacks, liberal politicians preach taking guns away from everyone except people whom they control, like the police.  Conservatives advocate putting guns into the hands of good guys.  In the process, we are losing sight of our deadliest enemy: radical Muslims.

Liberals tell us our most deadly enemy is the white male.  Liberals have popular phrases to summarize this enemy, such as "white privilege" and "toxic masculinity."  If they really hate white males so much, they should stop using the electric light bulb, made practical by Thomas Edison; nuclear power, whose theory was developed in part by Albert Einstein; and the automobile, developed in part by Henry Ford — all white males.

Whites do not always cause terrorist incidents.  For example, a black man named Aaron Alexis killed 12 people at the Washington Navy Yard on 16 September 2013.  Another example is Major Nidal Hasan's killing of 13 people at Fort Hood, Texas on 5 November 2009.  As for Hasan's motives, he was shouting "Allahu akbar" at the time.
Males are not always the killers.  On 2 December 2015, at San Bernardino, California, husband and wife Syed Rizwan Farook and Tashfeen Malik killed 13 people.

So, who are our most deadly enemies?  We can expect attacks from Americans who are crazy, but not stupid.  They like to target gun free zones.  An example is Sandy Hook Elementary School in 2012.

We can also expect attacks by radicalized Muslims.  They also shoot guns at crowds not expected to be armed, one incident being at a night club.

Of greater importance, we can expect Iran to complete its arsenal of nuclear weapons.  Iran is practicing vertical launches of missiles in the Caspian Sea.  An attack on Israel would be from land, so Iran must be aiming for some other enemy — perhaps an enemy so cowardly that it likes to give Iran billions of dollars.  Like American mass murderers, Iran is crazy, but not stupid.  The Iranians know they can detonate a nuclear bomb in the air and make an electromagnetic pulse (EMP) that would disable our electronics.  The next step would be invasion.

You may believe that invasion is far-fetched, but this has happened before in many other countries.  If it happens here, do not expect our military to rescue us.  Like with Benghazi, they will be told to stand down.  Even if they consider disobeying orders, it is government policy since 1992 that our military be disarmed while stateside.  They will be as helpless as we will be.

Do not expect our local police to help us.  Thanks to local governments not supporting them when they had altercations with suspects in Baltimore, New York City, and elsewhere, the police have chosen not to stick their necks out when people are attacked.  As a result, the homicide rate is significantly higher than it was five years ago.  For example, Chicago had 136 more murders in the last year than five years before.

We must help ourselves, but how?  We must arm ourselves.  Even though Americans believe in prosperity through hard work, not violence, we must do what is necessary to protect ourselves.  Will more people with guns mean more shooting?  If you are looking for an example of egregious violence at a time when guns were ubiquitous, the best example that you can find to support your argument is the gunfight at the OK Corral.  In that case, only three people died.  Civilized people know how to behave. 

For the most part, guns are legal to own.  Concealed weapons have restrictions.  Long rifles are allowed, and the longer barrel leads to more accuracy.

Do not just get the gun and store it.  Learn how to use it safely.  Practice so you can shoot accurately.  In an emergency, there will be no time to train.

Would the Founding Fathers want you to have a gun?  The Second Amendment of the U.S. Constitution says: "A well regulated Militia, being necessary to the security of a free State, the right of the people to keep and bear Arms, shall not be infringed."  You are that militia.  Secure your state, and keep it free.

 https://www.americanthinker.com/blog/2019/08/liberal_hysteria_on_guns_obscures_the_real_enemy.html