Criticizing the Carrier Deal, Shows Why Democrats Lost

One thousand jobs saved by a man who has yet to take the oath of office has Democrats reeling in agony. Most notably, Larry Summers, predicted "Trump’s Carrier deal could permanently damage American capitalism".  This former Clinton appointee and Obama economics advisor, also just following Trump's win, warned that a "badly designed" infrastructure plan "will only hurt the working class".  So, there you have it, Trump's focus on jobs is bad for capitalism and bad for America's working class.

And, it doesn't stop there. Dozens of left-leaning media types are pumping out negative commentaries as noted by these samplings of headlines that appeared in one "positive" from Investor's Business Daily (IBD):

"Trump's Carrier Victory Is the Economy's Loss"
"Trump's Carrier deal is right out of Putin's playbook"
"Is Trump's Deal With Carrier A Form Of Crony Capitalism?"
"Trump Cheered for Carrier Deal Even as Other Jobs Are Trimmed"
"Bernie Sanders: Donald Trump 'Has Endangered' U.S. Jobs With Carrier Deal"

Even the White House chimed in by claiming that this is just a fraction of the manufacturing jobs created by Obama, which, by the way, is a complete lie, since under Obama, more than 300,000 manufacturing jobs just went poof!  And, in the latest employment report, another 4,000 manufacturing jobs were lost. How does that square with Trump saving 1000 Carrier jobs? Or, the promise by Obama that he would create 1 million manufacturing jobs in his second term. 

My take on all the criticism of Trump and the Carrier Deal by Democrats is somewhat different.   I think that all the negative commentary only shows that Democrats really don't care about the American worker.  Instead it's all about sparring over politics.  Trump won on a pro-worker agenda and the Carrier deal was just a part of it.  This is why Trump won so many blue collar votes. The Democrats just don't get that.

References:

Trump’s Carrier deal could permanently damage American capitalism: https://www.washingtonpost.com/news/wonk/wp/2016/12/02/why-trumps-carrier-deal-is-bad-for-america/?utm_term=.95e00eef54ec

A badly designed US stimulus will only hurt the working class: http://larrysummers.com/2016/11/14/a-badly-designed-us-stimulus-will-only-hurt-working-class/

No, Obama, you presided over a loss of manufacturing jobs, and failed to deliver on exports: http://www.washingtontimes.com/news/2016/nov/30/no-obama-you-presided-over-loss-manufacturing-jobs/

Manufacturing Sector Loses 4,000 Jobs in November - CNS News: http://www.cnsnews.com/news/article/susan-jones/manufacturing-sector-loses-4000-jobs-november 

Here's Why Trump's Carrier Deal Is So Important: http://www.investors.com/politics/editorials/heres-why-trumps-carrier-deal-is-so-important/

Donald Trump’s support from blue-collar Colorado voters led to upset in a Democratic stronghold: http://www.denverpost.com/2016/11/11/donald-trumps-support-from-blue-collar-colorado-voters-led-to-upset-in-a-democratic-stronghold/

pb

The Democrats Officially Own Iran Getting the Bomb

Iran will get a nuclear bomb. Its just a matter of time. Some say in as little as 3 years, and others believing up to 10. At that time, President Obama and the Democrats will be forced to own that fact.

Last week, Harry Reid gained just enough votes to procedurally avoid the embarrassment of the President having to veto a Senate "no vote" on the Iran deal.  Following that, all the House Republicans and only 25 Democrats won a symbolic vote that disapproved of the Obama led deal.  Whether or not he ever saw a dissenting vote from both Houses of Congress, the President will still be politically responsible for Iran getting the bomb.

This will definitely be a problem for the Democrats in 2016.  A recent CNN/ORC poll showed that 59% of those polled disapprove of the President's negotiations with Iran.  Thus, by proxy, those Democrats who voted to "not" go against the President share in the nation's dissatisfaction with the so-called "deal".

Once again, politics trumps what is good for the nation and what is good for our only real ally in the Middle East: Israel.

References:

Senate Democrats protect Obama on Iran vote: http://www.cnn.com/2015/09/10/politics/iran-nuclear-deal-vote-congress/

House goes on record against Iran nuclear deal, in symbolic vote: http://www.foxnews.com/politics/2015/09/11/house-defeats-measure-approving-iran-deal-in-symbolic-vote/

Poll: Americans skeptical Iran will stick to nuclear deal: http://www.cnn.com/2015/09/13/politics/iran-nuclear-deal-poll/

"SnapBack" Sanctions: The Fatal Flaw In The Iran Nuke Deal

Once the deal is officially sanctioned by the U.N., U.S, European, and U.N. sanctions -- other than those imposed on the importation of conventional weapons and ballistic missile parts - will be lifted, in stages over 6 months, in return for good behavior.  As a result, Iran will have access to $100 billion in frozen assets in Europe and the United States and can start exporting an estimated $40-50 billion in oil per year.  In addition, there are numerous, less-sexy, sanctions that will also be lifted.  Of course, the deal also insures that there is the possibility of the re-institution of sanctions (referred to as snapbacks); should Iran violate any of its agreed upon restrictions over the next 15 years.  Sanctions that have been severely hurting Iran's economy.

Now, here's the flaw.

According to an excellent article written by Robert Satloff for the "The Washington Institute for Near East Policy" (link below), the snapback of sanctions is not applicable to any existing state-to-state or private international trading contracts that are in effect at the time when snapback's are to be applied.  Thus Iran will be able to repatriate those $100 billion in assets and protect them.  Or, it could set up very long term contracts with entities outside of its borders for the management of those assets and they would, under the deal, also be protected.  The same with oil.  They could set up 30-year deals with countries to buy their oil.  Thus, again, sidestepping snapback sanctions.  So, in effect, the snapback clause of this agreement gives Iran a means of avoiding future sanctions by merely setting up contracts that are long enough in their terms to allow it to resume its nuke program and bring it to fruition.

Any remaining snapbacks will also fail because the deal requires a unanimous vote in the United Nations Security Council to reinstate sanctions.  This is another problem.  Two permanent members of the Security Council, Russia and China, are very friendly with Iran -- they have already created a military pact with each other to fight Western sanctions -- and they are not necessarily friends with either the U.S. or Europe.  It only takes one of those two countries to use their veto power and sanctions won't be reimposed.  A fact that Iran has probably been counting on throughout the negotiation process.

If I'm right, my guess is that Iran will have protected itself against the snapback of most, if not all, sanctions in as little as two years.  At least the major ones.  At that point, they will be free to violate the deal and resume their nuke program with more money than they had before.  Money that will only accelerate their bomb making capabilities and, per the deal, there is nothing  Europe and the U.S. can legally do about it.

References:

Robert Satloff: What's Really Wrong with the Iran Nuclear Deal: http://www.washingtoninstitute.org/policy-analysis/view/whats-really-wrong-with-the-iran-nuclear-deal

Before the economic sanctions are lifted, the IAEA will have to confirm that Iran has fulfilled certain technical steps and reported them to the UN Security Council: http://www.haaretz.com/news/diplomacy-defense/1.665945

Iran deal announced, gets over $100 billion in sanctioned assets: http://hotair.com/archives/2015/07/14/iran-deal-announced-gets-over-100-billion-in-sanctioned-assets/

Iran nuclear deal: world powers reach historic agreement to lift sanctions: http://www.theguardian.com/world/2015/jul/14/iran-nuclear-programme-world-powers-historic-deal-lift-sanctions

Members of United Nations Security Council: http://www.un.org/en/sc/members/

Iran-Russia-China Axis to Fight Western Sanctions: http://www.globalresearch.ca/iran-russia-china-axis-to-fight-western-sanctions/5400429

Why I know the Iran Deal is a Bad Deal

Because Obama says it's a good deal.

How can anyone trust someone who lies incessantly to the American people: http://www.politifact.com/personalities/barack-obama/statements/byruling/false/

The Cuba Deal: Another One of Obama's One-Sided Negotiations

In March 2009, shortly after taking office, President Obama told Iran:

"if countries like Iran are willing to unclench their fists, they will find an extended hand from us"

Despite the fact that Iran has never unclenched its fist by continuing its nuclear weapons program; and, by continuing the development of long range missiles; and by continuing to undermine infant democracies in Iraq and Afghanistan by arming anti-government rebels; we stupidly, and one-sidedly, extended our hand by removing sanctions against them.  Even though the removal of such sanctions has produced  zero slowdown in their nuclear weapon ambitions. 

Then there was our "reset" with Russia in 2009 and our one-sided gifts to Putin such as agreeing not to put missile defense systems in Europe.  Where did that get us?  Relations with Russia are now almost as cold as they were throughout the Cold War.

Also, Obama announced a climate change deal with China in 2014.  This, too, was another one-sided effort where we specifically set targets, while China, somewhat, agreed to goals.  Goals with holes wide enough to drive a train through.  In fact, the Chinese have declared that their carbon emission reduction programs under this agreement will not be subject to any measurable scrutiny.  In other words, just believe us when we say we are meeting goals.

So, now, we learn about another one-sided deal.  This time with Cuba.

In exchange for one American held in Cuba for 5 years, we gave up 3 highly-valued, convicted Cuban spies.  We agreed to open an Embassy in Cuba.  We will review dropping the U.S. label of Cuba as a  state sponsor of terrorism, and there will be an easing of economic sanctions and a removal of a 54-year embargo on Cuban products such as cigars.

So, what did we get in exchange?

Nothing. No promises of better treatment of the Cuban people. No promise for democracy. No freedom of press or expression. No lifting of travel restrictions on Cubans wanting to visit the U.S. and, no agreement to stop international sponsorship of terrorism. Nothing!

Once again, Present Obama has proven to be a failed negotiator.  He can't negotiate with Congress and certainly can't negotiate with our international enemies.  Instead, he's more like a game show host who won't just give you what's behind door number three, he'll throw in 1 and 2 as well.

What's really interesting about Cuba is that they have maintained a cozy relationship with both Russia and Iran.  The two other countries that Obama showered with gifts and got nothing in return.

One last thing. Obama claims that we need to normalize relations with Cuba because 54 years of isolation hasn't worked.  Really?  What about nearly 70 years of isolation with North Korea?  Are we now expected to normalize relations with them just because the clock ran out? By the way. Cuba is also a close trading partner with North Korea.  It is surprising that a President who uses sanctions against Russia now admits sanctions haven't worked against Cuba.  They obviously haven't worked against North Korea either.  Then, why ever use them?

References:

Obama offers Iran 'new beginning': http://news.bbc.co.uk/2/hi/7954211.stm

United States Has Been Secretly Lifting Iranian Sanctions: http://www.theblaze.com/stories/2013/11/08/very-bad-deal-israeli-pm-netanyahu-lashes-out-over-wests-possible-nuke-deal-with-iran/

Obama Lifts Sanctions, Iranians Win, Regime Loses: http://www.huffingtonpost.com/jamal-abdi/obama-iran-sanctions_b_3358930.html

Iran nuclear talks extended to 2015 after failure at Vienna: http://www.theguardian.com/world/2014/nov/24/iran-nuclear-talks-likely-extended-vienna

Obama Administration Caves to Putin on Missile Shield:   http://www.newsmax.com/Newsfront/obama-missile-shield-russia/2013/03/17/id/495084/

Obama's One-Sided "Reset" With Russia | RealClearPolitics: http://www.realclearpolitics.com/articles/2013/05/14/obamas_one-sided_reset_with_russia_118387.html

Obama's Epic Climate Change Deal With China Falls Apart: http://news.investors.com/ibd-editorials/120814-729590-obama-taken-by-chinas-president-xi-jinping-in-signing-phony-climate-deal.htm

Obama hails 'new chapter' in US-Cuba ties: http://www.bbc.com/news/world-us-canada-30516740

Obama: Isolating Cuba hasn't worked: http://www.cnn.com/2014/12/17/politics/obama-cuba-castro-relations/index.html?eref=rss_topstories

Cuba–Iran relations - Wikipedia: http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Cuba%E2%80%93Iran_relations

Cuba-Russia relations - Wikipedia: http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Cuba%E2%80%93Russia_relations

Cuban relations with North Korea - The Economist: http://www.economist.com/blogs/americasview/2013/12/cuban-relations-north-korea 

China–Cuba relations: http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/China%E2%80%93Cuba_relations