Home United States USA — Political Barack Obama killed his own Iran deal and other comments

Barack Obama killed his own Iran deal and other comments

280
0
SHARE

From the right: Obama Killed His Own Iran Deal President Trump’s withdrawal from the Iranian nuclear deal has triggered a “paroxysm of fury among liberals,…
From the right: Obama Killed His Own Iran Deal
President Trump’s withdrawal from the Iranian nuclear deal has triggered a “paroxysm of fury among liberals, Never Trumpers” and the conventional foreign-policy establishment. But don’t blame Trump for its collapse, says Commentary’s Sohrab Ahmari: Blame all “belongs to his predecessor.” Barack Obama set his sights on an accord he figured would extricate the US from the Middle East — an “ill-conceived idea that failed to take sufficient account” of the Tehran regime’s nature. And he treated America’s Mideast allies as “nonentities and fools” for disagreeing with him. Indeed, “he lectured and condescended, and then lectured some more.” Then his “media echo chambers” shouted down those who raised concerns, which Obama refused to address. The deal’s demise, in short, “was written into it by its primary author.”
Libertarian: Can GOP Hold on to Trump’s Obama Voters?
Glenn Harlan Reynolds at USA Today wonders if the political sea change that elected Donald Trump “will last and even expand” or if it was “a flash in the pan.” The answer, he suggests, can be found in the new book by Salena Zito and Brad Todd, which he suggests both parties should “study and internalize.” They found many voters who supported Barack Obama “but felt that the country was going downhill under Democrats” and that Hillary Clinton “would worsen that tendency, while Trump offered a chance to turn things around.” Another interesting point is the role of peer pressure: Trump did badly among college-educated voters who lived among similar people, but “did well among college-educated voters who lived in places that were more diverse.”
Ex-envoy: Everyone’s Wrong About J’lem Embassy Move
Is moving the US embassy in Israel to Jerusalem “the death of hopes for peace,” justifying Palestinian intransigence, or is it “Israel’s final victory”? Says former US Ambassador Dan Shapiro at The Washington Post: “None of these statements is true.” Moving the embassy is both “correct and reasonable,” and, for all the angry rhetoric, “the sky is not falling.” In fact, it’s opened the door to discussion of a shared Jerusalem as part of a two-state solution, though likely not under current leadership on both sides. A future Israeli government still faces “some wrenching choices,” while the Palestinians’ “ability to generate pressure on Israel is declining.” Even with the new embassy, “surprisingly little about this conflict” has changed.”
Activist: Hispanics Score Gains Under Trump
President Trump has just pulled off the equivalent of a 6-for-7 batting performance in record job gains for Hispanic Americans, asserts Steve Cortes at Real Clear Politics. The Latino jobless rate has only registered below 5 percent for just seven months in all of US history — and “six of those months have occurred with Donald Trump in the White House.” Best of all: “Almost 1 million Americans who had previously given up on finding a job have rejoined the workforce since Trump was elected.” And this move to greater self-sufficiency underscores how “identity politics and Democrats’ Big Government policies have failed minorities.” Moreover, Trump’s “sensible regulatory restraint” has allowed small businesses and start-ups to thrive, “an especially crucial improvement for Hispanics, who are statistically the most entrepreneurial demographic.”
Health writer: Price Controls Stifle Life-Saving Drugs
“Gene therapies,” which extract a patient’s genetic material and engineer it to fight deadly diseases, are the future of medicine, says Tim Rice at The Weekly Standard. But while they’re “borderline miraculous,” they’re also incredible expensive. Which is why drug companies are devoting “tons of R&D to developing their own breakthrough cure.” But Democrats want to cap how much companies could charge, how much they can spend on R&D and even their profits. Yet while “a government agency wouldn’t set prices with an eye to turning a profit,” it’s “precisely that profit-seeking incentive that leads pharmaceutical companies to develop groundbreaking new drugs.” It costs an average $2.6 billion to develop a new drug, so companies need to feel confident they will “make back the money they spent up front.”
— Compiled by Eric Fettmann

Continue reading...