The Iran Deal That Must Not Be Named It’s so bad that the Bidenites don’t want it to be reviewed by the Senate. by Hugh Fitzgerald

https://www.frontpagemag.com/the-iran-deal-that-must-not-be-named/

The bad, no, terrible, deal — no, sorry, terrible “understanding” – that the Bidenites are about to conclude with Iran is now clear. It is so bad that the Bidenites don’t want it to be reviewed by the Senate, where even Democrats, such as the Chairman of the Senate Foreign Relations Committee, Robert Menendez, and Richard Blumenthal, have expressed great reservations. The Bidenites think that by sleight of word, calling this agreement a mere “understanding” rather than an “agreement,” Joe Biden won’t have to submit it to the Senate for its approval. Robert Spencer wrote about this here, and more on this mini-deal, that gives Iran potentially tens of billions of dollars in exchange for the same kind of promises the Islamic Republic broke before, can be found here: “Biden admin. won’t acknowledge Iran deal explicitly to skirt Congress – analysis,” by Lahav Harkov, Jerusalem Post, June 18, 2023:

In the Harry Potter books, characters call the villain “He Who Must Not Be Named,” for fear that saying “Voldemort” will conjure up the evil villain.

The Biden administration won’t say “Iran Deal,” apparently because it fears Congress. It is negotiating “the deal that must not be named.”

The Soros Succession The family drama behind the $25 billion leftist empire. by Daniel Greenfield

https://www.frontpagemag.com/the-soros-succession/

Millions of people watched the series finale of Succession, a show based on the Murdoch family succession drama, complete with shots at Republicans, conservatives and FOX News.

The real life succession drama of the Soros family was however greeted with a few media puff pieces including at Murdoch’s Wall Street Journal and the New York Times. The passage of the $25 billion Open Society network which topples governments, uproots societies and funds the leftist internationale to the next generation of the Soros clan garnered media press releases.

But there’s plenty of succession drama in the family of the leftist billionaire.

As George’s firstborn, Robert Soros might have been expected to inherit the throne. A trader like his father, Robert was temporarily given the reins to Soros Fund Management before having them taken back, and then given back again. Robert’s marriage broke up after he allegedly cheated on his wife, who had cancer, with a nude model. The divorce case dragged on, threatening his finances, and he left to start his own Soros Capital Management.

Robert’s younger brother Jonathan, who had shared the role of chief investor with him, seemed like the likely heir apparent. Jonathan, like his father and unlike his older brother, had a much more ambitious political vision, getting down and dirty with the leftist groups his father backed.

Jonathan even carried the middle name of Tidavar: George’s antisemitic father, who charged Jews trying to escape the Holocaust “whatever the market would bear” and who had dispatched his son to participate in the confiscation of Jewish property to “cheer the unhappy lad up”.

The ‘Idiocracy’ Is Upon Us: Gen Z Can’t Read or Write Cursive By Rick Moran

https://pjmedia.com/news-and-politics/rick-moran/2023/06/27/the-idiocracy-is-upon-us-gen-z-cant-read-or-write-cursive-n1706622

According to Pew Research, Gen Z consists of everyone born between 1997 and 2012. How “they” arrived at that time period is a mystery, and frankly, I don’t much care how or why they picked that date range to define a generation of snowflakes.

After learning this, I hate them even more: Generation Z never learned to write in cursive.

That’s a tragedy, since there is no more achingly beautiful form of the English language than a love letter written in what we used to call “longhand.” There is something so magnificently personal and private about writing how you feel about that special someone using whirls and loops in ink from an old-fashioned fountain pen.

Even more catastrophic is that Gen Z never learned to read cursive. And therein lies a tale of lost civilized behavior that may never be recovered.

Deseret News:

With the development and prominence of technology, cursive has become increasingly obsolete, but what impact will this have for the future?

According to The Atlantic, this means, “In the future, cursive will have to be taught to scholars the way Elizabethan secretary hand or paleography is today.” This directly impacts archival work. Many written documents from the 19th century and other early time periods are written in cursive. While it was once taken for granted that American students would know how to read cursive, now that cannot be the case.

Archival work largely depends on a reader’s ability to read hard-to-read texts in shorthand and/or cursive. Will this mean that universities will start having to offer college courses in history programs on how to read cursive? Only time will tell.

The villain in this tale of the evil destruction of a treasured way to communicate is Common Core.

Russia: No One Knows Anything: Steven Hayword

https://www.powerlineblog.com/archives/2023/06/russia-no-one-knows-anything.php

Screenwriter William Goldman’s famous line about Hollywood—”No one knows anything”—applies fully to the confusing scene in Russia right now. And let’s not go further without also bringing up for the millionth time Churchill’s description of Russia as “a riddle, wrapped in a mystery, inside an enigma.”

There’s a sentence in one of the Wall Street Journal‘s many articles about the matter today that reminds of this: “The full story behind why Prigozhin launched—then stunningly halted—his revolt isn’t yet known.” One reason for this is the scarcity of western European or American reporters inside Russia who have developed good sources and understand the country. In this regard one must wonder whether it is a mere coincidence that the American reporter most fluent in Russian and with intimate knowledge of the country—Evan Gershkovich—was arrested and jailed several weeks ago. (If you have a long Cold War memory, re-run the Nick Danilov arrest in Moscow in 1986, just weeks before the climactic Reagan-Gorbachev summit in Iceland.) Joe Biden has been strangely quiet about the matter, and while there is one obvious explanation for that, it is also possible that our intelligence agencies didn’t have any hint it was going to happen, or did know it, and Biden’s team didn’t know just what, if anything, to do or say about it.

Lots of aspects of this “coup” or “insurrection” don’t make a lot of sense, unless . . . it was an exercise from the old Communist playbook going back to the Stalinist purges of the 1930s of setting up a “controlled opposition” as a means of smoking out dissidents and disloyal party members so they could be eliminated before a threat grew. And even legitimate protest groups, like Solidarity in Poland in the early 1980s or Charter 77 in Czechoslovakia, were always quickly infiltrated (kind of like the FBI and the Proud Boys, Weather Underground, etc), and divided, disrupted, or rolled up.

Senate Democrats Take One More Step Toward Socialized Medicine Sally C. Pipes

https://issuesinsights.com/2023/06/28/senate-democrats-take-one-more-step-toward-socialized-medicine/

It’s been less than a year since Democrats enacted the Inflation Reduction Act, which gives Medicare the power to set the prices of certain medicines. 

Those price controls have yet to go into effect. But Democrats already want more. They’ve introduced new legislation that would amp up those price controls — and even permit the government to refuse to cover drugs in order to drive a harder bargain with pharmaceutical companies.

As for the patients who would benefit from those drugs — or may even need them to stay alive? They may end up being collateral damage.

The Democrats’ new price control gambit is the SMART Prices Act, introduced by Sens. Amy Klobuchar, D-Minn., Peter Welch, D-Vt., and 23 of their colleagues. They say their bill would “build on” the IRA. 

That law, which President Biden signed last August, subjects 10 medicines to price controls under Medicare in January 2026. The government will set the prices for 15 more in 2027, another 15 in 2028, and 20 more per year in 2029 and beyond.

The SMART Prices Act would take things even further. It would empower Medicare to set prices for 20 drugs in 2026, instead of the current 10 under the IRA. In 2027, that number would jump to 40 — many more than the IRA stipulated.

The new bill would also subject medicines to price controls five years after approval by the Food and Drug Administration. That’s up to eight years quicker than under the IRA and significantly sooner than when generic or biosimilar competitors can enter the market.  

This provision would gut the generics industry. Generic firms face substantial upfront costs. They must create medicines that are bioequivalent to the innovative branded drugs they’re copying. And they have to build facilities in which to manufacture them. 

They recapture those investments by underpricing their wares relative to branded drugs and capturing a small margin on each sale. Patients, of course, benefit from those lower prices. 

But if Washington sets a rock-bottom price on a brand-name drug, there will be no incentive for a generics manufacturer to enter the market.

That’s problematic for several reasons. For starters, the government’s mandated price may not be as low as a competitive market could generate. So patients may end up paying more than they should. 

India’s True Liberals Should Reconsider Their Icons Salvatore Babones

https://quadrant.org.au/opinion/india/2023/06/an-indian-idol-well-worth-junking/

“Postcolonial history is chock-full of Third World dictators revered as great reformers: Ho Chi Minh, Kwame Nkrumah, Fidel Castro — and in India there is Jawaharlal Nehru. The first and longest-serving prime minister, he was an enemy of free speech, a persecutor of political opponents and, in regard to legislative legerdemain, a masterclass practitioner. Yet knowing all this, India’s intellectual class continues to approach his memory on bended knee.”

The First Amendment to the United States Constitution famously guarantees Americans near-absolute freedom of speech. It was foisted on an unwilling political class by anti-federalists who were wary of despotic rule by the newly-created national government.

The First Amendment to the Indian Constitution, by contrast, limited Indians’ freedom of speech by explicitly granting the government the authority to impose “reasonable restrictions … in the interests of the security of the State, friendly relations with foreign States, public order, decency or morality, or in relation to contempt of court, defamation or incitement to an offence”.

It was foisted on a mostly-illiterate population in 1951 by a political class that was wary of the growing power of the people in India’s newly-independent democracy.

Jawaharlal Nehru, India’s first and longest-serving prime minister, was the chief architect of the first amendment, and he did not hesitate to say why he wanted it. In the formal statement of objectives for amendment, he personally wrote that “certain difficulties have been brought to light by judicial decisions and pronouncements specially in regard to the chapter on fundamental rights”.

What were those difficulties? The Supreme Court had ordered the release of political opponents who had been indefinitely detained by the government and invalidated the censorship of publications that had been critical of the government. In other words, Nehru did an end-run around the judiciary by changing the Constitution to suit his political needs.

Obama Rings the Reparations Bell By Eileen F. Toplansky

As Black Lives Matters and their allies rev up the call for reparations, it is time to revisit what Milton R. Konvitz wrote in 1976 for the celebration of the Bicentennial of American Independence[1]:

In the late 1960s, when militant blacks staged demonstrations in various churches demanding a half-billion dollars in ‘reparations’ for three hundred years of subjugation and discrimination, a writer in an Anglo-Jewish journal formulated a demand for ‘reparations from various nations on behalf of the Jewish people, including demands to the Vatican for the harm done by teaching that the Jewish people were guilty of deicide and for the  promotion of the blood libel; on Spain for the Inquisition and for the expulsion of Jews in 1492; on Germany France, Austria, and Italy, as successors of the Holy Roman Empire, for imprisoning Jews in ghettos; on Arab governments for oppression of the Jews for hundreds of years; on Russia for forcing Jews to live in the Pale of Settlement, for prohibiting them from owning land, for imposing on Jews a quota system that severely restricted their admission to high school and to the universities.  

As far as Italian-Americans, should they too demand reparations?  How many people are aware of the worst lynching in America — the mass murder of Italian-Americans in New Orleans in 1891?  Moreover, “Sicilians were viewed by many Americans as culturally backward and racially suspect,” writes historian Manfred Berg.  Because of their dark skin, they were often treated with the same contempt as black people.  In fact,  “many Southerners looked down on these Italians as ‘white Negroes.'”

Then there are the Chinese, who had to deal with “the Chinese Exclusion Act of 1882.  Although the Chinese composed only 0.002 percent of the nation’s population, Congress passed the Chinese Exclusion Act to placate worker demands and assuage concerns about maintaining white ‘racial purity.'”

Moreover, “[f]rom the burning of Boston’s Charlestown Convent in 1834 and the rise of the single-issue, anti-immigrant Know Nothing party in the 1850s … to the No Irish Need Apply signs of the 1890s — immigrant Catholics faced the brunt of Protestant America’s rage.”

Yet Obama, our first black Caucasian president, demands reparations for black Americans.

Liz Peek: Nothing to see here: Democrats ignore alleged Biden corruption

https://www.foxnews.com/opinion/nothing-see-here-democrats-ignore-alleged-biden-corruption

Every single Democrat on the House Ways and Means Committee voted to keep hidden from the public whistleblower testimony that the Department of Justice blocked the investigation into Hunter Biden. Every single one.

Is there not one Democrat legislator concerned about the wrongdoing of the FBI or the Department of Justice, or maybe curious about the source of Hunter Biden’s millions? Won’t any Democrat who has sworn to uphold our Constitution feel obligated to support the investigations into alleged corruption by Hunter Biden and more importantly, the president?  Are there no honest Democrats?

Where is the left’s Tulsi Gabbard or Jeff Van Drew? Gabbard, former Democrat representative from Hawaii, broke with her party in their first effort to impeach Donald Trump, voting “present.” Van Drew also defied his party, voting “no” on charges of abuse of power and obstruction of Congress, subsequently switching parties and becoming a Republican. Standing in the way of Democrats’ rush to judgment on Donald Trump cannot have been easy; it was costly to both representatives – and a few others — to vote their conscience.

So far, Biden’s colleagues on the Hill have glommed together like silly putty in their defense of Joe and his son Hunter. Can the solidarity hold up? It’s hard to imagine.

After all, the walls are closing in on Joe Biden. Republicans in the House are doggedly and carefully pursuing leads, beginning with 150 suspicious activity reports, that reveal more each week about Biden, Inc. The House Oversight Committee, led by James Comer, has obtained bank records that show millions – possibly tens of millions – of dollars flowing not only to Hunter Biden himself but also to many members of the Biden family from countries like China and Ukraine through obscure LLCs. Someone needs to ask Joe Biden why these complicated financial transactions were necessary. If everything is above board, why funnel funds through hard-to-trace intermediaries?

Part II: At High School Debates, Watch What You Say Kids are losing high school debates because of their personal tweets, reveals James Fishback in a new exposé. By James Fishback

https://www.thefp.com/p/personal-tweets-lose-high-school-debates

One month ago, James Fishback, a former debate champion, wrote a piece for us exposing how high school debate has been hijacked by political and ideological judges. The article went viral. Politicians on both sides of the aisle tweeted their shock at Fishback’s findings. Democratic Rep. Ro Khanna and Republican Sen. Ted Cruz invited him to meet with them to discuss the problem.

Most importantly, more than a hundred coaches, debate parents, and debaters (both current and former) reached out to Fishback to share their own experiences, confirming that in high school debate, debate is no longer allowed. That number included people from inside the National Speech & Debate Association, the key institution Fishback investigated, who told him he didn’t know the half of it.

So we asked Fishback to dig deeper. Here’s what he found. — BW

Once upon a time, the National Speech & Debate Association, or NSDA, was the country’s premier debating organization, touching the lives of two million high school students across its nearly hundred-year history. Its famous alumni include Oprah Winfrey, and Supreme Court justices Neil Gorsuch and Ketanji Brown Jackson. The NSDA, formerly known as the National Forensics League, currently has 140,000 young debaters on its roster—but now, rather than teaching them to debate, it is teaching them to self-censor and conform their arguments to a new politically correct standard.

The NSDA has allowed hundreds of judges with explicit left-wing bias to infiltrate the organization. These judges proudly display their ideological leanings in statements—or “paradigms”—on a public database maintained by the NSDA called Tabroom, where they declare that debaters who argue in favor of capitalism, or Israel, or the police, will lose the rounds they’re judging.

This has fundamentally changed the culture of high school debate—or so scores of students are telling me. One of them is former high school debater Matthew Adelstein, a rising sophomore studying philosophy at the University of Michigan, who was a member of the NSDA in high school.

Adelstein told me that, in April 2022, he competed at the prestigious Tournament of Champions in Lexington, Kentucky, where he debated in favor of the federal government increasing its protection of water resources.

In his final round of the two-day tournament, Matthew was shocked to hear the opposing team levy a personal attack against him as their central argument. The opposing team argued: “This debate is more than just about the debate—it’s about protecting the individuals in the community from people who proliferate hatred and make this community unsafe.”

What Happens After the End of Affirmative Action? The Supreme Court is expected to rule that colleges can no longer rig for racial diversity. Some say ‘that’s dangerous and cruel.’ Others say it’s about time. By Rupa Subramanya

https://www.thefp.com/p/what-happens-after-the-end-of-affirmative

When he was growing up outside San Francisco in the seventies and eighties, David Malcolm Carson almost never thought about race or affirmative action.

Carson’s mother is Jewish; his father, black. His friends were a racial and ethnic smorgasbord.

In high school he started to cast about for an identity, and became more aware of his blackness.

“I began to understand that in societal terms I would be considered ‘black,’ that America had had a ‘one-drop rule’ for centuries,” Carson told me.

He read Alex Haley’s Autobiography of Malcolm X, and matriculated at the historically black Howard University in Washington, D.C. He stopped going by David, and started going by Malcolm: “Part of it was that it referenced Malcolm X and all that he represented, part of it was just wanting to declare some independence.” He got into “old-school hip-hop, Public Enemy, A Tribe Called Quest, De La Soul.” He wrote his senior thesis on the FBI’s counterintelligence program targeting the Black Panthers.

After college, Carson applied to Stanford Law School and got in. At the end of his second year, he transferred to the University of California at Berkeley’s Boalt Hall, because he wanted to do a joint degree in city planning. Berkeley said yes.

“It’s likely that I benefited from affirmative action in applying to Stanford and Berkeley,” Carson said, but he noted that he had straight As at Howard and that, when he took the LSAT, he was in the top 1 percent. At a time of growing skepticism around race-based admissions—President Bill Clinton called to “mend, not end” the policy—Carson demonstrated in defense of it. He also joined the staff of the Black Law Journal.

But in 1995, policy at the University of California—the biggest public university system in the country—changed when the Board of Regents barred race-based admissions on its nine campuses.

In response, Boalt convened an Admissions Policy Task Force, and Carson was invited to take part. Berkeley, like many universities, had embraced diversity, and it wasn’t about to give that up.