Knowledge is Power

Awfercryinoutloud!
At least Neville Chamberlain waved around an actual done deal.

State Department spokeswoman Jen Psaki said that the six-month interim period, during which Iran would take steps to rein in its nuclear program in exchange for sanctions relief, has not yet begun. Furthermore, there are still a number of details to be worked out, she said, without specifying what points had yet to be finalized.

Her comments created confusion as to whether the much-touted interim deal, supposedly reached by P5+1 powers and Iran in Geneva in the early hours of Sunday morning, had actually been completed as claimed. Iran on Tuesday accused the US of publishing an inaccurate account of what had been agreed. And its Foreign Minister Mohammad Javad Zarif said in an address to the Iranian parliament Wednesday that Iran would continue construction on the Arak heavy water plant, in an apparent breach of the ostensibly agreed terms.

“The next step here is a continuation of technical discussions at a working level so that we can essentially tee up the implementation of the agreement,” Psaki told reporters Tuesday. “Obviously, once that’s — those technical discussions are worked through, I guess the clock would start.

… [lots more] …

Psaki’s statements largely confirmed speculations by former State Department official and ambassador Elliott Abrams, who argued in his Council for Foreign Relations blog earlier Tuesday that the language used by the White House to discuss the Iran interim deal was largely “aspirational,” ….

Friggin’ aspirational ?!
Yahoo!

Made you forget about last-week’s Obamascandal, though, dinnit?

I have a new 'Domino Theory' (BTF): »

As no individual domino in a string attracts any special attention, Obama needs a continuous flow of OMGs to prevent any particular OMG from becoming sufficient to get ‘im impeached. Without that series of failures, the nation might be tempted to address each major failure as a critical failure.

Rush interviews David Horowitz
Go read it. Don’t cost nuthin’.

I think the most important thing I’ve done in this book is to show the continuity in the left with its communist forebears. These are not liberals. We should never call these people liberals. To begin with, they’re bigots. They’re bigoted against Christians, against America, against white people. They don’t like conservatives. They don’t want two sides to a question. We are liberal. I don’t know of a conservative who wants to shut off the conversation, but leftists do.
…
[The term] Progressive is certainly better than liberal, but none of these terms accurately describes them. Progressives believe that history is a forward march. Obama put a carpet in the Oval Office with this inscription: “The moral arc of the universe is bent towards justice.” No, it isn’t. What kind of a belief is that? The 20th century is probably the worst century on record for the number of people murdered and oppressed, and the 21st century will probably be worse. There’s no historical progress in the sense of a moral evolution. Progressives think that they’re on the side of history. That’s what drives them, that’s what makes them so arrogant, that’s what makes them despise us, because we don’t go along with their program, and so we’re standing in the way of historical “progress.”
…
What’s in it for them is the fact that progressivism is a religion, or a crypto-religion. Like religious people, they believe the world is a fallen place. But they also believe that they can be its saviors. Salvation and redemption are not going to come from a divinity, but from the movement they are part of, from the organized left. What they get out of this is the consolation of religion. They get a sense of personal worth; they get a meaning to their lives. That’s what drives them. It’s not money. It’s much more powerful.

[and then it gets good]

I toss this out as the words of a true expert on the topic,
while I’ve merely poked it with a stick once in a while.

I neglected to point out that, more than just describing it, Horowitz actually talks about how to deal with Progressivism. That’s something that doesn’t get discussed much.
(Wha? Well, yeah, but I meant besides that.)

As a number of y’all have pointed out in the comments these past weeks,
there seems to be a sinister plot behind the unconscionable lies that this administration has told.
Sure, politicians are dishonest and untrustworthy as a species,
but what’s behind the particular godawfuness of the Obamacare script?
Why would the Obamunists risk the push-back that getting caught in such lies would certainly produce?
What is their real goal?

Here ya go — dots connected as well as I’ve ever seen it:

The lie, the fraud, does not tell us why they lied in this instance.
The fraud does not tell us what the stakes are.
To know that, we must understand the scheme — the design.

I’ll spare you my clumsy digest of the article.
Read the whole thing.
Yes, it is necessary.
You’ll be glad you did.
(Wha? Well, okay, “glad” may not be the right word.)

I have one problem with this chain of thought, however; and it goes well beyond “ev-er-y. frik-kin’. dayyyyy!”
How could they think they’d actually get away with it? Are they that contemptuous of Americans?
Do they truly believe that they can avoid a total collapse of their scheme by controlling the message?
Do they truly believe that we are at the “tipping point,” so nothing can stop them?
Do they truly believe America will tolerate pseudo-fascism?
(Wha? Yeah, Reid triggering the “nuclear option” certainly indicates that they may well think so*.)

_________________
* This allows the administration to put radical judges on federal courts in order to accommodate a major shift of power to the Executive Branch. You know, legal dictatorship … an Enabling Act.